Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 26, 2025

FIDENCIO CANO ARMENTA v. SINGAPORE GRILL NY INC., et al.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:24-cv-01261
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fidencio Cano Armenta v. Singapore Grill NY, Judge Wang ordered the settled parties to confer and report on Cheeks submissions by October 10, 2025.

Who this affects

The parties to the settled case, including Fidencio Cano Armenta and Singapore Grill NY Inc., et al.

What happened

In Fidencio Cano Armenta v. Singapore Grill NY Inc., et al., the parties had reached a settlement agreement.

The court directed the parties to meet and discuss how to proceed, then file a joint letter by October 10, 2025. The letter must either say that they intend to follow the procedure described in a cited Second Circuit case or propose a schedule for their Cheeks submissions.

Judge Ona T. Wang entered this order. The order did not decide the underlying claims or state whether the settlement would be approved.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
FIDENCIO CANO ARMENTA v. SINGAPORE GRILL NY INC., et al. · No. 1:24-cv-01261
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Sept. 26, 2025

Background

The opinion states that the parties reached a settlement agreement. It does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms.

Order

The court directed the parties to meet and confer, meaning to discuss the next procedural steps. By October 10, 2025, they must file a joint letter on the docket. The letter must either inform the court that they intend to follow the example described in Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Rest., Inc., 944 F.3d 395, 398 (2d Cir. 2019), or propose a briefing schedule for their Cheeks submissions. Cheeks submissions are materials submitted for court review of certain settlements.

Disposition

The court entered this procedural order concerning the settled case. It did not resolve the underlying claims or state whether the settlement would be approved.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.