Zinnamon v. Coty DTC Holdings, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-05158
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Zinnamon v. Coty DTC Holdings, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 30 days.
Warren Zinnamon and Coty DTC Holdings, LLC. The case was closed, subject to a possible application to restore it within 30 days.
What happened
Zinnamon v. Coty DTC Holdings, LLC involved Warren Zinnamon and Coty DTC Holdings, LLC, doing business as Kylie Cosmetics. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket within 30 days. The clerk was directed to close the case. The order did not describe the settlement terms or decide the underlying claims.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request to reopen the case had to be filed within 30 days. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, they had to put the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within that period.
The detailed version
- Zinnamon v. Coty DTC Holdings, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-05158
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 1, 2022
Background
The court stated that it had been informed that the case was settled in principle. The order does not identify the claims or describe the settlement terms.
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 warned that an application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The clerk of court was directed to close the case.
The court further stated that, if the parties wanted it 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 order did not reach the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.