Jackson v. Boba Tea Protein, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-09735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jackson v. Boba Tea Protein, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
The parties to the action—Sylinia Jackson and Boba Tea Protein, LLC—are affected because the case was closed after a reported settlement in principle, subject to the stated 45-day restoration and settlement-enforcement procedures.
What happened
Jackson v. Boba Tea Protein, LLC was brought by Sylinia Jackson on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case may be restored if an application is made within 45 days; the court also set the same deadline for placing any settlement-enforcement terms on the public record.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Jackson v. Boba Tea Protein, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-09735
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 12, 2025
Background
Sylinia Jackson brought this action on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated against Boba Tea Protein, LLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled in principle.
Ruling
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application to restore the action is made within 45 days. Any application to reopen filed after that period may be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain 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. Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not resolve the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.