Crumwell v. Robert Simon Fine Art, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-09586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Crumwell v. Robert Simon Fine Art, Judge Abrams discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, without costs and with restoration available within 45 days.
The order affected Denise Crumwell, the people she identified as similarly situated, and Robert Simon Fine Art, Inc. The action was discontinued, subject to a possible application to restore it within 45 days.
What happened
In Crumwell v. Robert Simon Fine Art, Inc., Denise Crumwell brought the action for herself and other similarly situated people against Robert Simon Fine Art, Inc. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court did not decide the underlying claims. Instead, it discontinued the action without costs to either party and allowed either side to seek restoration of the case within 45 days.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also ordered that any request for the court to enforce a settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that same period. The clerk was directed to close the case.
The detailed version
- Crumwell v. Robert Simon Fine Art, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-09586
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 1, 2022
Background
Denise Crumwell sued Robert Simon Fine Art, Inc. on behalf of herself and other similarly situated people. The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle.
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 45 days. The order states that an application filed after that deadline could be denied solely because it was late. The clerk was directed to close the case.
If the parties wanted the court to retain 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 45-day period. The order did not decide the underlying claims or address whether the proposed similarly situated group would be certified.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.