Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2020

Ramos v. 175th Street Laundromat, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:19-cv-09545
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Ramos v. 175th Street Laundromat, Judge Carter directed the parties to submit their proposed settlement and an explanation of its fairness.

Who this affects

The parties to Ramos v. 175th Street Laundromat, Inc., who were directed to file the proposed settlement and a joint memorandum by June 26, 2020.

What happened

Ramos v. 175th Street Laundromat involved a settlement that the parties told the court they had reached.

The court required the parties to file the proposed settlement and a joint legal memorandum of no more than 10 pages. The memorandum had to explain why the settlement was fair and reasonable and address concerns identified by the appeals court in an earlier case.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. ordered the filings by June 26, 2020. The order did not decide whether the settlement was ultimately acceptable.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ramos v. 175th Street Laundromat, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09545
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
June 1, 2020

Background

The court received a letter from the defendant dated May 21, 2020, stating that the parties had reached a settlement.

Order

The court directed the parties to file the proposed settlement and a joint memorandum of law of no more than 10 pages. The memorandum had to explain why the proposed settlement was fair and reasonable and why it did not otherwise raise the concerns identified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015). The filings were due no later than June 26, 2020.

Effect of the Order

The order required additional settlement-related filings. It did not approve or reject the settlement and did not resolve the underlying claims.

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.