Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2025

Senior v. Rixo Retail, LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:25-cv-01369
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Senior v. Rixo Retail, LLC, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by May 23, 2025.

Who this affects

The action brought by Frank Senior against Rixo Retail, LLC, including the persons Senior sought to represent, was discontinued pending finalization of the reported settlement.

What happened

In Senior v. Rixo Retail, LLC, Frank Senior brought an action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons against Rixo Retail, LLC.

Senior informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The order does not describe the claims or settlement terms.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and requested restoration by May 23, 2025. If no such request 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
Senior v. Rixo Retail, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01369
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 23, 2025

Background

Frank Senior filed an action against Rixo Retail, LLC on behalf of herself and other similarly situated persons. The court received a letter from Senior stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the proposed settlement.

Court’s Order

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. The order allowed the action to be restored 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 May 23, 2025.

Effect of the Deadline

The order stated that if no application to restore the action was made by May 23, 2025, the dismissal would be with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not decide the underlying claims.

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.