Girotto v. Intermix Holdco, Inc.

S.D. New York

Girotto v. Intermix Holdco, Inc.

DecidedNovember 15, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-04434

StatusUnknown

This text of Girotto v. Intermix Holdco, Inc. (Girotto v. Intermix Holdco, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Girotto v. Intermix Holdco, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LUIGI GIROTTO, Plaintiff, 21 Civ. 4434 (PAE) “Ve ORDER OF LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA DISCONTINUANCE HOLDINGS, et al., Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: The Court having been advised by the parties that ali claims as between plaintiff and defendants have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated! To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same thirty-day period to be “so ordered” by the Court. Per Paragraph 4(C) of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices for

The Court has been advised that the cross claims asserted by the Defendants against each other, which are state law claims, are the only claims remaining in the case. Given the case’s early stage, and the corresponding lack of discovery, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims. Ergowerx Int'l, LLC v. Maxell Corp. of Am., 18 F. Supp. 3d 453, 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd, 615 F. App’x 689 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Loren v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 3605 (PAE), 2017 WL 2964817, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 11,2017). The defendants are at liberty to pursue such claims in state court.

Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this case. SO ORDERED.

PAUL A. ENGELMA yl United States District Judge Dated: November 15, 2021 New York, New York

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LUIGI GIROTTO, Plaintiff, 21 Civ. 4434 (PAE) “Ve ORDER OF LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA DISCONTINUANCE HOLDINGS, et al., Defendant.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: The Court having been advised by the parties that ali claims as between plaintiff and defendants have been settled in principle, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled action is hereby dismissed and discontinued without costs, and without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to reopen the action within thirty days of the date of this Order if the settlement is not consummated! To be clear, any application to reopen must be filed within thirty days of this Order; any application to reopen filed thereafter may be denied solely on that basis. Further, if the parties wish for the Court to retain jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcing any settlement agreement, they must submit the settlement agreement to the Court within the same thirty-day period to be “so ordered” by the Court. Per Paragraph 4(C) of the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices for

The Court has been advised that the cross claims asserted by the Defendants against each other, which are state law claims, are the only claims remaining in the case. Given the case’s early stage, and the corresponding lack of discovery, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these remaining claims. Ergowerx Int'l, LLC v. Maxell Corp. of Am., 18 F. Supp. 3d 453, 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd, 615 F. App’x 689 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Loren v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 3605 (PAE), 2017 WL 2964817, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 11,2017). The defendants are at liberty to pursue such claims in state court.

Civil Cases, unless the Court orders otherwise, the Court will not retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement unless it is made part of the public record. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this case. SO ORDERED.

PAUL A. ENGELMA yl United States District Judge Dated: November 15, 2021 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Girotto v. Intermix Holdco, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/girotto-v-intermix-holdco-inc-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack