Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 3, 2024

Perez v. Long Island Railroad Company

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:22-cv-10723
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Perez v. Long Island Railroad, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle.

Who this affects

Harvey Perez and Long Island Railroad Company. The action was discontinued based on the reported settlement in principle, subject to possible restoration by May 3, 2024.

What happened

Harvey Perez told the court that he and Long Island Railroad Company had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying dispute.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore the case was made by May 3, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought again in that court.

The detailed version

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

Case
Perez v. Long Island Railroad Company · No. 1:22-cv-10723
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 3, 2024

Background

The court received a letter from Plaintiff Harvey Perez stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide details about the claims or the settlement terms.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed either party to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that the application was made by May 3, 2024.

Effect of the Deadline

The order states that if no application to restore the action was made by May 3, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order does not decide the underlying legal dispute.

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.