Vigliotti v. Man With A Cam, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-01664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vigliotti v. Man With A Cam, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 30, 2024.
The plaintiff, Gregg Vigliotti, and the defendant, Man With A Cam, Inc.; the action was discontinued based on the reported settlement in principle.
What happened
In Vigliotti v. Man With A Cam, Inc., the plaintiff told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by May 30, 2024.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that, if no request to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Vigliotti v. Man With A Cam, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01664
- Vyskocil
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
The court received a letter from the plaintiff stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.
Court’s Order
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that any application to restore the action was made by May 30, 2024.
Effect of the Deadline
The order states that if no application to restore the action was made by May 30, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not then be restored through that procedure. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on April 30, 2024.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.