Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2024

Yan Luis v. Just Play, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-07904
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Yan Luis v. Just Play, LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 1, 2024, or making dismissal with prejudice.

Who this affects

Kevin Yan Luis, Just Play, LLC, and the other people he sought to represent. The action was discontinued, subject to possible restoration by May 1, 2024, and otherwise would be dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

In Yan Luis v. Just Play, LLC, the court received the defendant’s letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and applied for restoration by May 1, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration application was filed by May 1, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Yan Luis v. Just Play, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07904
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 1, 2024

Background

Kevin Yan Luis brought the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Just Play, LLC. The court received a letter from Just Play stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the parties to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar if they were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that the application to restore the action was made by May 1, 2024.

The order further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state whether the parties ultimately reduced the settlement to writing or whether any restoration application was filed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.