Sethy v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-03452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sethy v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle action without prejudice to timely restoration.
The plaintiffs, Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, and the putative class members were affected by the discontinuance and closure of the case. The parties had 30 days to seek restoration, and they could seek continuing court authority to enforce the settlement only by placing its terms on the public record and obtaining the court’s approval within that period.
What happened
Sethy v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC involved Yvette Sethy and Darlene Gonzalez, who sued individually and on behalf of similarly situated people. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court ordered that the case be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 30 days. The clerk was directed to close the case. The order did not describe the settlement terms or decide the underlying claims.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- Sethy v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-03452
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 28, 2025
Background
Yvette Sethy and Darlene Gonzalez brought the action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC. The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not provide the claims, the settlement terms, or any merits analysis.
Court’s 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 30 days. It stated that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing authority—to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The order did not itself approve or describe the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.