Redzik v. Seacrest Realty Co., LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-09493
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Redzik v. Seacrest Realty, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 10, 2024, or dismissal with prejudice.
Darian Redzik, Seacrest Realty Co., LLC, and ADP TotalSource II, Inc.; the action was discontinued after the parties reported reaching a settlement in principle.
What happened
In Redzik v. Seacrest Realty Co., LLC, Darian Redzik told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle with Seacrest Realty Co., LLC and ADP TotalSource II, Inc.
The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms. It states only that the plaintiff notified the court of the agreement in principle.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the case discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by June 10, 2024; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Redzik v. Seacrest Realty Co., LLC · No. 1:23-cv-09493
- Vyskocil
- May 10, 2024
Background
Darian Redzik was the plaintiff, and Seacrest Realty Co., LLC and ADP TotalSource II, Inc. were the defendants. The court received Redzik’s letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the parties to seek restoration of the action to the court’s calendar without prejudice if they were unable to memorialize the settlement in writing, but the request had to be made by June 10, 2024. If no request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Effect
The case was conditionally dismissed following the reported settlement in principle. The order preserved a limited opportunity to restore the case by the stated deadline if the settlement could not be put in writing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.