Miah v. Synapse Medical Communications LLC
- Ricardo
- 1:24-cv-03330
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Miah v. Synapse Medical Communications LLC, Judge Ricardo directed the parties to submit materials supporting approval of their settlement.
The parties to the case, including Razwan Miah and Synapse Medical Communications, LLC, along with the other captioned defendants, must jointly submit materials concerning their settlement.
What happened
In Miah v. Synapse Medical Communications LLC, the parties told the court they had reached an agreement on all issues during court-ordered mediation.
The court later reopened the case to consider approval of the settlement under the requirements described in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The opinion does not state what claims the case involved.
Judge Ricardo directed the parties to file a joint letter by June 20, 2025, explaining why the settlement should be approved and to include the settlement agreement and any other necessary information. The court did not decide whether to approve the settlement in this order.
The detailed version
- Miah v. Synapse Medical Communications LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03330
- Ricardo
- June 6, 2025
Background
The parties advised the court on September 25, 2024, that they had reached an agreement on all issues during court-ordered mediation. On January 24, 2025, the court reopened the case to facilitate review and approval of the settlement under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). On February 7, 2025, the case was reassigned to Judge Henry J. Ricardo with the consent of all parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
Order
The court directed the parties to file a joint letter by June 20, 2025, explaining why the settlement should be approved under Cheeks. The parties were also directed to submit the settlement agreement and any other necessary information.
Disposition
The order directs the parties to provide materials for settlement review. It does not approve or reject the settlement and does not decide the underlying claims. The opinion does not identify those claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.