Williams v. Schweiger Dermatology, PLLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-01831
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. Schweiger Dermatology, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without prejudice to timely restoration.
Milton Williams, Schweiger Dermatology, PLLC, and the persons Williams identified as similarly situated were affected by the discontinuance. The action was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 45 days.
What happened
Williams v. Schweiger Dermatology, PLLC involved Milton Williams, who sued on behalf of himself 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 and without prejudice to restoring it to the docket if an application was made within 45 days. It also adjourned the initial conference and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered the order on July 11, 2025. The order also said that any settlement terms would have to be placed on the public record and approved by the court if the parties wanted the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Schweiger Dermatology, PLLC · No. 1:25-cv-01831
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 11, 2025
Background
Milton Williams brought this action on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated against Schweiger Dermatology, PLLC. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. It states only that the Court had been told the case had been settled in principle.
Order
Judge Ronnie Abrams 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. The order warned that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The order further stated that, if the parties wanted the Court to retain jurisdiction—authority to enforce a settlement agreement—the settlement terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the Court within the same 30-day period specified in the order. The initial conference scheduled for July 11, 2025, was adjourned, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Disposition
The Court discontinued the action; it did not decide the underlying claims. The opinion does not state that the settlement was finally approved or describe its terms.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.