Wareka v. Mai Beaute, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-09862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wareka v. Mai Beaute, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 45 days.
Tamara Wareka p/k/a Tamara Williams, Mai Beaute, LLC d/b/a Mai Lash Bar, and Does 1 through 10; the action was closed subject to the order’s restoration and settlement-enforcement conditions.
What happened
In Wareka v. Mai Beaute, the court was told that the plaintiff and defendants had settled the case in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it within 45 days. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement request would require the agreement’s terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the stated period.
The detailed version
- Wareka v. Mai Beaute, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09862
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 17, 2025
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle. The opinion does not describe the claims or 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 docket if an application to restore it is made within 45 days. It stated that an application filed after that deadline may be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction 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 thirty-day period. The order therefore refers both to a 45-day restoration deadline and a thirty-day period for placing settlement terms on the public record; the opinion does not explain the difference.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action without costs and without prejudice to a timely application to restore it. The court did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.