Trippett v. Other Half Brewing Company, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-01372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Trippett v. Other Half Brewing, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 60 days.
The order affects Alfred Trippett, Other Half Brewing Company, Inc., and the proposed class members identified in the case caption. The opinion does not describe the settlement terms or its effect on those class members.
What happened
Trippett v. Other Half Brewing Company, Inc. was a proposed class action brought by Alfred Trippett against Other Half Brewing Company, Inc. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle, but the order does not describe the settlement terms.
The court discontinued the case without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 60 days. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to keep authority to enforce a settlement had to place the agreement on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 30-day period identified in the order.
The detailed version
- Trippett v. Other Half Brewing Company, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-01372
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 29, 2025
Background
The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. The caption identifies Alfred Trippett as suing on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not provide the claims, the settlement terms, or any explanation of the alleged underlying dispute.
Court’s action
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 60 days. It further stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The clerk of court was directed to close the case.
The court also addressed possible continuing authority to enforce a settlement agreement. If the parties wanted the court to retain that authority, the agreement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period referenced in the order.
Effect of the order
This order closed the case based on the reported settlement in principle; it did not decide the underlying claims. The opinion does not state whether the settlement received final approval, whether a class was certified, or how the settlement would affect absent class members.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.