Lawal v. FullBeauty Brands, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-02639
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lawal v. FullBeauty Brands, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Rafia Lawal, the putative class members, and FullBeauty Brands, Inc.; the action was closed after the reported settlement, subject to the court’s 60-day restoration and settlement-enforcement conditions.
What happened
Lawal v. FullBeauty Brands, Inc. was reported to the court as settled. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The case could be restored to the court’s docket if an application was made within 60 days, and the court warned that later applications could be denied on that ground alone.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement only if they placed the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtained the court’s approval within the same 60-day period.
The detailed version
- Lawal v. FullBeauty Brands, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02639
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 16, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case had been settled. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the claims’ merits.
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. It stated that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction—meaning authority to enforce the 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. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Disposition
The court discontinued the action and closed the case. This order did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.