Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 22, 2025

Lopez v. Shopperschoice.com

Full caption

Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Shopperschoice.com, L.L.C.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:25-cv-06873
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Lopez v. Shopperschoice.com, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by October 22, 2025.

Who this affects

Victor Lopez, the people he sought to represent, and Shopperschoice.com, L.L.C.; the action was discontinued pending completion of the settlement, subject to the October 22, 2025 restoration deadline.

What happened

Victor Lopez, suing on behalf of himself and similarly situated people, told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle with Shopperschoice.com, L.L.C.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. It allowed either side to seek restoration of the case if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but the request had to be made by October 22, 2025.

Judge Vyskocil ordered that if no request to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the action could not be reopened under that order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lopez v. Shopperschoice.com · No. 1:25-cv-06873
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Sept. 22, 2025

Background

Victor Lopez informed the court by letter that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

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 memorialize their settlement in writing, but any application to restore the action had to be made by October 22, 2025.

The order further stated that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court 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.