Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2025

Causi v. Univision Communications Inc.

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:25-cv-06196
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Romina Causi v. Univision Communications Inc., Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after settlement in principle, subject to restoration by January 2, 2026.

Who this affects

Romina Causi and Univision Communications Inc.; the action was discontinued following the parties’ settlement in principle, subject to the court’s restoration and dismissal conditions.

What happened

Romina Causi v. Univision Communications Inc. was before the Southern District of New York. The parties told the court that they had reached a settlement in principle.

The court 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 applied to restore the case by January 2, 2026. If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Causi v. Univision Communications Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-06196
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Dec. 2, 2025

Background

The parties sent the court a letter stating that they had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

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 if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing and made an application to restore the action by January 2, 2026. If no such application was made by that date, the court stated that the dismissal would be with prejudice. The court also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely.

Effect

The order ended the action based on the reported settlement, subject to the stated restoration deadline. It did not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying dispute.

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.