Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 18, 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 ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Fidencio Cano Armenta v. Singapore Grill NY Inc., Judge Wang approved the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable and ordered the case closed.

Who this affects

The plaintiff, Fidencio Cano Armenta, and the defendants, Singapore Grill NY Inc. and the other named defendants, were affected by approval of the proposed settlement and closure of the case.

What happened

In Fidencio Cano Armenta v. Singapore Grill NY Inc., the court reviewed the parties’ proposed settlement submission.

The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement’s terms. It states only that the parties submitted the proposed settlement for court review.

Judge Ona T. Wang found the proposed settlement fair and reasonable. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the settlement filing and then close the case.

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
Nov. 18, 2025

Background

The parties submitted a proposed settlement for the court’s review. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or provide the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the settlement submission under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., a Second Circuit decision concerning judicial review of certain employment settlements. The court found that the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable. The opinion does not provide further reasons for that conclusion.

Disposition

Judge Ona T. Wang directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 136 and then close the case. The order approved the proposed settlement as fair and reasonable and closed the matter; it did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.

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.