Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2024

Daneshrad v. Moses & Singer LLP

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-11056
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Daneshrad v. Moses & Singer LLP, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 2, 2024, under stated conditions.

Who this affects

Megan Daneshrad, the defendants Moses & Singer LLP, Dean Swagert, David Lackowitz, Paul Roder, and Philippe Zimmerman, and the female employees Daneshrad sought to represent.

What happened

In Daneshrad v. Moses & Singer LLP, Megan Daneshrad told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement terms.

The court discontinued the case without costs to any party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but an application to restore it had to be made by June 2, 2024. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion filed at ECF No. 16.

The detailed version

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

Case
Daneshrad v. Moses & Singer LLP · No. 1:23-cv-11056
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 2, 2024

Background

Megan Daneshrad sued Moses & Singer LLP, Dean Swagert, David Lackowitz, Paul Roder, and Philippe Zimmerman, individually and on behalf of similarly situated female employees. The court received a letter from Daneshrad stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the claims asserted or the terms of the proposed settlement.

Ruling

The court 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 June 2, 2024. The order further stated that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 16.

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.