Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2025

Ayala v. Penzeys, LTD.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:25-cv-01926
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Ayala v. Penzeys, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after settlement in principle, allowing restoration by July 7, 2025.

Who this affects

Diony Ayala, Penzeys, LTD., and the people described in the caption as similarly situated.

What happened

In Ayala v. Penzeys, LTD., Diony Ayala sued Penzeys, LTD. on behalf of himself and others described as similarly situated. The parties told the court they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. The case could be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore it was made by July 7, 2025. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also postponed all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ayala v. Penzeys, LTD. · No. 1:25-cv-01926
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 5, 2025

Background

Diony Ayala brought the action against Penzeys, LTD. on behalf of himself and all others described in the caption as similarly situated. The opinion states that the parties sent the court a letter reporting that they had reached a settlement in principle.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to put their settlement in writing and an application to restore the action was made by July 7, 2025. The court further stated that, if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. All other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.

Effect of the Order

The order resolved the case based on the parties’ reported settlement process rather than deciding the underlying claims. It did not state whether the settlement had been finalized or provide 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.