Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2022

Miller v. Adeam International Corporation

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:22-cv-01369
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Miller v. Adeam International, Judge Abrams discontinued the action after learning it had settled in principle, allowing timely restoration.

Who this affects

Kimberly Miller, the people she sought to represent, and Adeam International Corporation; the action was closed subject to a timely application to restore it.

What happened

Miller v. Adeam International Corporation involved Kimberly Miller, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adeam International Corporation. The court was told that the case had settled in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket. A request to restore or reopen the case had to be filed within 45 days of the order.

Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order said that, if the parties wanted the court to keep authority to enforce a settlement, they had to place the settlement terms on the public record and have the court approve them within the same 45-day period.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Miller v. Adeam International Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-01369
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 26, 2022

Background

Kimberly Miller sued Adeam International Corporation individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had settled in principle. It does not describe the settlement’s terms or state that the court approved a final settlement.

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 was made within 45 days. Any application to reopen the action also had to be filed within 45 days of the order; the court stated that a later application could be denied solely because it was late.

The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority 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 45-day period. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.