Senior v. American Gateway Marketing Group
- Vyskocil
- 1:24-cv-07261
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Senior v. American Gateway Marketing Group, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by March 17, 2025.
Milagros Senior, the persons she sought to represent, and American Gateway Marketing Group.
What happened
In Senior v. American Gateway Marketing Group, Defendant informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by March 17, 2025.
If no request to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on January 31, 2025.
The detailed version
- Senior v. American Gateway Marketing Group · No. 1:24-cv-07261
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 31, 2025
Background
Milagros Senior brought the action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons against American Gateway Marketing Group. The opinion does not state the substance of the claims. The court received a letter from American Gateway informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
Court’s Order
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 any application to restore the action was made by March 17, 2025.
The order further states that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be brought back. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order. The opinion does not state whether the settlement was later reduced to writing or whether any application to restore the action was made.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.