Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 14, 2024

Wahab v. MIG Furniture, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:24-cv-01792
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Wahab v. MIG Furniture, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by June 13, 2024.

Who this affects

Angela Wahab, the similarly situated people identified in the caption, and MIG Furniture, Inc.; the action was discontinued subject to the stated deadline for possible restoration.

What happened

Wahab v. MIG Furniture, Inc. was discontinued after the defendant informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court allowed the action to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application was made by June 13, 2024. The action was discontinued without costs to any party; if no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on May 14, 2024. The order did not discuss the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wahab v. MIG Furniture, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01792
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 14, 2024

Background

Angela Wahab brought the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against MIG Furniture, Inc. The court received a letter from MIG Furniture informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

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. Restoration was allowed only if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing and the application to restore the action was made by June 13, 2024.

The order further states that if no application to restore the action was made by June 13, 2024, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court discontinued the action based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle rather than deciding the underlying legal 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.