Arai v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-01577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Arai v. Experian, Judge Vyskocil denied a stay and discontinued the case against Experian after a settlement in principle.
Natalia Arai and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. were affected by the discontinuance and dismissal terms. The order did not discontinue the case as to Equifax Information Services, LLC or Ford Motor Credit Company LLC.
What happened
In Arai v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Natalia Arai told the court that she and Experian had reached a settlement in principle.
The court denied Arai’s request for a stay and discontinued the case against Experian without costs. The case could be restored if the parties applied by November 31, 2022; otherwise, the dismissal as to Experian would be with prejudice. The order did not discontinue the case as to the other defendants.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil also adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. Any request to restore the case had to state that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement.
The detailed version
- Arai v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01577
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 16, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Natalia Arai informed the court that she and Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.
Rulings
The court denied the request for a stay. It discontinued the case as to Experian Information Solutions, Inc. without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the case to the court’s calendar if an application to restore was made by November 31, 2022. The order states that if no application was made by that date, the dismissal as to Experian would be with prejudice.
The order did not discontinue the case as to Equifax Information Services, LLC or Ford Motor Credit Company LLC. It adjourned all other dates and deadlines indefinitely. A request to restore the case had to specify that the parties had not signed a settlement agreement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.