Williams v. Weiser Classic Candy
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-04956
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. Weiser Classic Candy, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 60 days.
Pamela Williams, the similarly situated people she sought to represent, and Weiser Classic Candy; the action was discontinued, with restoration available only if sought within 60 days.
What happened
Williams v. Weiser Classic Candy was a case brought by Pamela Williams on behalf of herself and similarly situated people. The court was told that the parties had settled in principle and were finalizing a settlement agreement.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. It allowed the parties to seek restoration of the case within 60 days of the order.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any settlement-enforcement jurisdiction would require the settlement terms to be placed on the public record and approved by the court within that same 60-day period.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Weiser Classic Candy · No. 1:20-cv-04956
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
Pamela Williams brought the action on behalf of herself and others described as similarly situated. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims. The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle and were finalizing a settlement agreement.
Court’s Action
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 was made within 60 days. The order states that an application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction 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 60-day period.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams discontinued the action under those conditions. The opinion does not state that the settlement agreement had been finalized or approved, and it does not describe any ruling on the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.