Knowles v. Revival Tea Company, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-05944
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Knowles v. Revival Tea, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.
Carlton Knowles, the other people identified in the caption as similarly situated, and Revival Tea Company, Inc.; the case was closed subject to a possible application to restore or reopen it within 45 days.
What happened
Knowles v. Revival Tea Company, Inc. is an action brought by Carlton Knowles on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Revival Tea Company, Inc. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 45 days. The court also said any request to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed that the case be closed. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement only if the settlement terms were made public and approved by the court within the same 45-day period.
The detailed version
- Knowles v. Revival Tea Company, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-05944
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 8, 2024
Background
Carlton Knowles brought the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Revival Tea Company, Inc. The court stated that it had been reported that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or provide the terms of the settlement.
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. It further ordered that any application to reopen the action be filed within 45 days of the order and warned that an application filed later could be denied solely because it was late.
The court stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning continuing 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 court directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to restoration within the stated 45-day period. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state the settlement’s terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.