Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 30, 2024

Toro v. Curbside Clothing, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-04336
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Toro v. Curbside Clothing, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 30, 2024.

Who this affects

Jasmine Toro, the people she sought to represent, and Curbside Clothing, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the order's deadline and conditions.

What happened

In Toro v. Curbside Clothing, Inc., Jasmine Toro told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. She brought the case for herself and others similarly situated.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but any request to restore it had to be made by May 30, 2024.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Toro v. Curbside Clothing, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04336
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 30, 2024

Background The court received a letter from Jasmine Toro stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement's terms.

Ruling Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by May 30, 2024. The order states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not then be brought again.

Effect The order discontinued the case based on the reported settlement in principle. It did not approve or describe the settlement, and it did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.

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.