Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 6, 2024

Rivera v. Better Holdco, Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-10635
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Rivera v. Better Holdco, Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by July 8, 2024.

Who this affects

Daniel Rivera and Better Holdco, Inc.; the action was discontinued after the reported settlement in principle.

What happened

In Rivera v. Better Holdco, Inc., the court received a letter from Daniel Rivera stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by July 8, 2024; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered the order on June 6, 2024. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or address the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rivera v. Better Holdco, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-10635
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 6, 2024

Background

The court received a letter from the plaintiff stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The discontinuance was without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by July 8, 2024.

The order further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.

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.