Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2025

Reyes v. Pvolve LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:25-cv-00187
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Reyes v. Pvolve LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by March 10, 2025.

Who this affects

Nathalie Reyes, Pvolve LLC, and the people described in the caption as others similarly situated.

What happened

Nathalie Reyes brought this action against Pvolve LLC on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated. The court received Reyes’s letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court ordered that the action be discontinued 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 application to restore the action had to be made by March 10, 2025.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Reyes v. Pvolve LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00187
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Feb. 6, 2025

Background The case was brought by Nathalie Reyes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against Pvolve LLC. The opinion states that the court received a letter from Reyes informing it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s Action The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the action could be restored to the court’s calendar without prejudice if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by March 10, 2025.

Effect of the Deadline Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by March 10, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state that the court approved the settlement or describe its terms.

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.