Government Employees Insurance Company as subrogee of Christopher Vignali v…
Government Employees Insurance Company as subrogee of Christopher Vignali v. United States
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-00188
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Government Employees Insurance Company v. United States, Judge Tarnofsky discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by June 14, 2024.
Government Employees Insurance Company, as subrogee of Christopher Vignali, and the United States. The action was discontinued without costs, with a possible restoration deadline of June 14, 2024, and otherwise a dismissal with prejudice after that date.
What happened
Government Employees Insurance Company as subrogee of Christopher Vignali sued the United States. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims, but the court was told that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed the case to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore the case was made by June 14, 2024.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Government Employees Insurance Company as subrogee of Christopher Vignali v… · No. 1:24-cv-00188
- Tarnofsky
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
The court was informed that Government Employees Insurance Company, as subrogee of Christopher Vignali, and the United States had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the underlying legal claims or the settlement's terms.
Ruling
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 to restore the action was made by June 14, 2024. If no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
Effect
The case was closed based on the parties' settlement in principle, subject to the stated restoration deadline. The order's conditional language means that restoration remained available through June 14, 2024, but the dismissal would become with prejudice if no timely application was filed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.