Frenzy Technologies, Inc. v. Frosted, Inc.
Frenzy Technologies, Inc. v. Frosted, Inc.
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCU ENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UMEN ELECTRONICALLY FILED FRENZY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., doing business DOC #:__ as Hyper.co, DATE FILED:_ 2/28/2023 Plaintiff, 1:22-ev-1223 (MKV) “against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL FROSTED, INC., doing business as Whop.com, Defendant.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, United States District Judge: The Court is in receipt of a letter filed by Defendant informing the Court that the parties have reached a settlement in principle and requesting an extension of time to respond to the Complaint [ECF No. 27]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned action is discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to this Court’s calendar if the application to restore is made by March 30, 2023. Ifno such application is made by that date, today’s dismissal of the action is with prejudice. See Muze, Inc. v. Digital On Demand, Inc.,
356 F.3d 492, 494 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004). All other dates and deadlines, including the deadline to respond to the Complaint, are adjourned sine die. SO ORDERED. | i / hae Date: February 28, 2023 MARY ae vyfocnd New York, NY United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown