Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 14, 2025

Karim v. The Tea Spot, PBC

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-07462
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Karim v. The Tea Spot, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing possible restoration within 30 days.

Who this affects

Jessica Karim, the people she sought to represent, and The Tea Spot, PBC; the case was closed subject to the stated 30-day restoration procedure.

What happened

Karim v. The Tea Spot, PBC involved Jessica Karim’s case brought on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against The Tea Spot, PBC. The opinion does not describe the claims or the proposed settlement’s terms.

The court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It did not state that the settlement had been finally approved or describe its terms.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the action discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it within 30 days. The Clerk was directed to close the case; any later application to reopen may be denied solely because it was filed after that deadline. The court also said that any request to retain authority to enforce a settlement must place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within 30 days.

The detailed version

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

Case
Karim v. The Tea Spot, PBC · No. 1:24-cv-07462
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Feb. 14, 2025

Background

Jessica Karim brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against The Tea Spot, PBC. The opinion does not identify the claims or provide details about the parties’ proposed settlement.

Court’s Action

The court stated that it had been informed that the case was settled in principle. It ordered the action 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 30 days of the order. The court warned that an application filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—meaning 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 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

Disposition

This order discontinued the action based on the reported settlement in principle; it did not decide the underlying claims or describe the settlement’s final terms.

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.