Tucker v. Universal Beauty Products Incorporated
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-00024
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tucker v. Universal Beauty Products, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after settlement discussions, allowing restoration by May 1, 2025.
Henry Tucker, the proposed similarly situated persons identified in the complaint, and Universal Beauty Products Incorporated are affected by the discontinuance and the deadline for seeking restoration.
What happened
Tucker v. Universal Beauty Products Incorporated was brought by Henry Tucker for himself and other similarly situated people. The court received Tucker’s letter reporting that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed it to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the case had to be made by May 1, 2025.
Judge Vyskocil ordered that, if no restoration request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. She also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending letter motion.
The detailed version
- Tucker v. Universal Beauty Products Incorporated · No. 1:25-cv-00024
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 31, 2025
Background Henry Tucker brought this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated against Universal Beauty Products Incorporated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. Tucker filed a letter informing the court 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. 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 May 1, 2025.
The order further states that if no application to restore the action was made by May 1, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate the letter motion pending at ECF No. 7. The court did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.