Williams v. NEH Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-00513
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. NEH Inc., Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs and without prejudice to restoration within 30 days.
The order affected Milton Williams, NEH Inc., and the other people Williams sought to represent by discontinuing and closing the action, while allowing an application to restore it within 30 days.
What happened
Williams v. NEH Inc. was a case brought by Milton Williams against NEH Inc. 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 any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 30 days. The court also explained that any settlement-enforcement arrangement would need to be made public and approved by the court within that period.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Williams v. NEH Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00513
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 24, 2021
Background
Milton Williams brought this action against NEH Inc. on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated. The opinion states that the Court was 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 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 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 30-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. The order did not address the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.