Lawal v. Twin Z Company, Inc.
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-08664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lawal v. Twin Z Company, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled action without costs and without prejudice to timely restoration.
Rafia Lawal, Twin Z Company, Inc., and the people identified in the caption as similarly situated are affected by the action’s discontinuance and closure.
What happened
In Lawal v. Twin Z Company, Inc., the court was told that the case had been settled. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.
The court discontinued the action without costs to either party and without prejudice to restoring it if an application was made within 60 days. It also stated that any later application to reopen could be denied solely because it was late.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce the settlement had to place the settlement terms on the public record and receive the court’s approval within the same 60-day period. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Lawal v. Twin Z Company, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08664
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 5, 2022
Background
The court was informed that this action had been settled. Rafia Lawal brought the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The opinion does not state the claims asserted or disclose the settlement’s terms.
Order
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 60 days. The court stated that any application to reopen filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late.
If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, authority to enforce the settlement agreement—the settlement 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 action was discontinued under the stated 60-day restoration conditions, and the case was closed. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the merits of the settlement.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.