J’Nae v. Tiger Mist LLC
Kira J’Nae, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tiger Mist (US) LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-05634
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kira J’Nae v. Tiger Mist, Judge Abrams discontinued the case after a settlement was reported, without costs, while allowing restoration within 30 days.
Kira J’Nae, Tiger Mist (US) LLC, and the putative group of similarly situated persons identified in the complaint are affected by the discontinuance and 30-day restoration deadline.
What happened
Kira J’Nae sued Tiger Mist (US) LLC individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The order did not address the claims’ merits or state the settlement’s terms.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. Any request to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely because it was late; any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that period.
The detailed version
- J’Nae v. Tiger Mist LLC · No. 1:25-cv-05634
- Ronnie Abrams
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
The opinion states that the court was told the case had been settled in principle. It does not provide the settlement terms or describe the underlying claims.
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 was made within 30 days. The court stated that an application to reopen filed after 30 days could be denied solely on that basis. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce a settlement agreement—the settlement’s terms had to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within the same 30-day period. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.