Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 12, 2024

Jackson v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-04340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Jackson v. S.C. Johnson, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle action without costs and allowed timely restoration.

Who this affects

Sylinia Jackson, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., and the other persons identified in the caption as similarly situated. The case was discontinued, with a possible restoration application due within 45 days.

What happened

Jackson v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. involved Sylinia Jackson’s action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed an application to restore the case to the court’s docket if filed within 45 days of the order.

Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the same 45-day period.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-04340
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 12, 2024

Background

Sylinia Jackson brought this action on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. The opinion states that the court was informed the case had been settled in principle. It does not provide the settlement terms or decide the underlying claims.

Court’s 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 docket if an application to restore it was made within 45 days. Any application to reopen the action had to be filed within 45 days of the order; the court stated that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority—to enforce a settlement agreement, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 45-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

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.