Lawal v. Salon Services, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:22-cv-08458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lawal v. Salon Services, Judge Abrams discontinued the settled-in-principle case without costs, allowing restoration within 60 days.
Rafia Lawal, the people she sought to represent, and Salon Services, LLC. The opinion does not state the settlement terms or what any party would receive.
What happened
Lawal v. Salon Services, LLC involved Rafia Lawal’s action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Salon Services, LLC. The court was told that the case had been settled in principle.
The court discontinued the action without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it to the court’s docket if an application was made within 60 days. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also stated that any request for the court to retain authority to enforce a settlement agreement had to place the agreement’s terms on the public record and obtain the court’s approval within the same 60-day period. The order did not state the settlement’s terms or decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Lawal v. Salon Services, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08458
- Ronnie Abrams
- Feb. 14, 2023
Background
Rafia Lawal brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against Salon Services, LLC. The opinion states that the court was informed that the case had been settled in principle. It does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims.
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 60 days. The court warned that any application filed after that period could be denied solely because it was late. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Settlement enforcement
The court stated that, if the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing 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 60-day period. The order did not resolve the merits of the claims or state whether the settlement would become final on any particular terms.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.