Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 21, 2024

Socha v. Garfield Development Corp.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-07372
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In Socha v. Garfield Development Corp., Judge Ramos directed the parties to submit their settlement for review after reporting agreement on all issues.

Who this affects

The parties to the case, including Zbigniew Socha and the other defendants, were directed to submit their settlement agreement for review; the opinion also identifies Socha as acting on behalf of others similarly situated.

What happened

In Socha v. Garfield Development Corp., the mediator reported that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. Zbigniew Socha brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Garfield Development Corp. and other defendants.

The court directed the parties to submit their settlement agreement for review under the Second Circuit’s decision in Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. The submission was due by April 4, 2024.

Judge Edgardo Ramos issued the order on March 21, 2024. The order directed settlement review; it did not state that the court had approved the settlement or describe its terms.

The detailed version

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

Case
Socha v. Garfield Development Corp. · No. 1:23-cv-07372
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 21, 2024

Background

Zbigniew Socha sued Garfield Development Corp. and other defendants on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. The opinion does not identify the claims or describe the settlement’s terms.

Court’s Action

The court stated that it had received the mediator’s report that the parties had reached an agreement on all issues. It directed the parties to submit their settlement agreement for court review under Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199, 200 (2d Cir. 2015), by April 4, 2024.

Disposition

The order required submission of the settlement for review. It did not state that the settlement was approved, and it did not provide any additional disposition of the case.

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.