Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 11, 2024

Parents Defending Education v. Croton-Harmon Union Free School District

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:24-cv-04485
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePreliminary Injunction
In one sentence

In Parents Defending Education v. Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, Judge Seibel denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Parents Defending Education and the defendants, including Croton-Harmon Union Free School District.

What happened

Parents Defending Education sued Croton-Harmon Union Free School District and others and asked the court for a preliminary injunction.

The court denied the motion and dismissed the action without prejudice because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded it did not have authority to hear the case.

Judge Seibel directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The order states that the reasons were given during the July 11, 2024 hearing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Parents Defending Education v. Croton-Harmon Union Free School District · No. 7:24-cv-04485
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
July 11, 2024

Background

Parents Defending Education brought this action against Croton-Harmon Union Free School District and other defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is a request for a court order requiring or preventing specified conduct while a case is pending.

Ruling

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. It also dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's legal authority to hear a particular case. The order cites Do No Harm v. Pfizer Inc., 96 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2024), and Aguayo v. Richardson, 473 F.2d 1090 (2d Cir. 1973), and states that the reasons for the rulings were given on the record on July 11, 2024.

Disposition

The action was dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, identified as ECF No. 6, and close the case. Judge Cathy Seibel signed the order.

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.