Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 30, 2025

Dhiman v. Equifax Information Services LLC

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:25-cv-01581
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dhiman v. Equifax, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the settled case, allowing restoration by July 30, 2025; otherwise, dismissal is with prejudice.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Deepti Dhiman and Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC; the case was discontinued based on the parties’ reported settlement, subject to the court’s restoration deadline.

What happened

In Dhiman v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Plaintiff told the court that she had resolved her claims against Equifax Information Services LLC.

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, but any request to restore it had to be made by July 30, 2025.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no request to restore the case 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
Dhiman v. Equifax Information Services LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01581
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
June 30, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Deepti Dhiman filed a letter titled “Notice of Settlement,” informing the court that she had resolved her claims against Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC. The opinion does not describe the claims or the settlement’s terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the action could 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 July 30, 2025. If no application was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice.

Effect

The order ended the case based on the reported settlement but preserved a limited opportunity to restore it before the stated deadline. The court did not decide the underlying claims or describe the settlement’s substance.

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.