Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2025

Jackson v. Factor75, LLC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:25-cv-00871
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Jackson v. Factor75, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.

Who this affects

Sylvia Jackson, the people she sought to represent, and Factor75, LLC; the action was closed after the court was informed that the parties had settled in principle.

What happened

Jackson v. Factor75, LLC involved Sylvia Jackson’s case brought on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. The court reported that the parties had settled the case in principle.

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 45 days. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the period stated in the order. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. Factor75, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-00871
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Mar. 18, 2025

Background

The case was brought by Sylvia Jackson on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people against Factor75, LLC. The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or provide the settlement terms.

Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s docket if an application to restore it was made within 45 days. It warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—authority to resolve disputes about enforcing the settlement—the settlement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same thirty-day period identified in the order. The opinion does not explain the apparent difference between that thirty-day reference and the separate forty-five-day restoration deadline.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration under the order. The order closed the case but allowed a timely application to restore it.

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.