Espinal v. Regis University
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-10777
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Espinal v. Regis University, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after the parties reported a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by May 2, 2024.
Frangie Espinal, the similarly situated persons she sought to represent, and Regis University. The action was discontinued under the stated settlement-related conditions.
What happened
Frangie Espinal brought this case against Regis University on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Espinal told the court that the parties 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, provided any request to restore the case was made by May 2, 2024.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no request to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Espinal v. Regis University · No. 1:23-cv-10777
- Vyskocil
- Mar. 18, 2024
Background
Frangie Espinal sued Regis University on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion does not state what claims Espinal asserted or describe the underlying dispute.
Settlement Notice
The court received a letter from Espinal stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not provide the settlement's terms.
Order
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. Any application to restore the action had to be made by May 2, 2024. The court further ordered that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ended the action based on the parties' reported settlement process and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.