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 discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by December 14, 2022, or dismissal with prejudice.
Natalia Arai and defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Ford Motor Credit Company LLC. The action was discontinued without costs, with a possibility of restoration by December 14, 2022 if the settlement was not memorialized in writing; otherwise, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
What happened
In Arai v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Natalia Arai informed the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party. It allowed the case to be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application to restore the case was made by December 14, 2022.
If no application was made by that date, the dismissal would become with prejudice. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on October 26, 2022.
The detailed version
- Arai v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01577
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Natalia Arai filed this action against Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Equifax Information Services, LLC, and Ford Motor Credit Company LLC. The court received Arai’s letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not state the claims’ factual or legal basis.
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, provided that an application to restore the action was made by December 14, 2022.
The order further stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion cites Muze, Inc. v. Digital On Demand, Inc., 356 F.3d 492, 494 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004), in support of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.