Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 4, 2025

D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:23-cv-01337
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFamily
In one sentence

In D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan granted the parties’ requests to waive infant-settlement requirements and extend their filing deadline.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and defendants were affected by the waiver of the infant-compromise requirements and the new February 14, 2025 deadline for filing their settlement stipulation.

What happened

D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education involved the parties’ negotiations toward a settlement. They told the court that E.G., the former student, was now eighteen and that the proposed settlement would provide equitable relief and attorney’s fees, not damages.

The parties jointly asked the court to waive the infant-compromise requirements under the court’s local rule. They also requested more time to file their final settlement agreement, asking for ten additional days if the waiver was granted or thirty days otherwise.

Judge John P. Cronan granted the requests. He waived the infant-compromise provisions and allowed the parties to file their settlement agreement by February 14, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-01337
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Feb. 4, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs and defendants jointly asked for additional time to submit a final stipulation of settlement and an Infant Compromise Order. The parties represented that they were nearly finished negotiating the settlement. They also asked the court to clarify or waive the infant-compromise requirement because E.G., described as the former student in the case, was eighteen years old, was not considered intellectually disabled, and did not have parents with guardianship.

The parties stated that the settlement concerned equitable relief for E.G. and attorney’s fees owed by the parents, and that damages were not being sought. They explained that, if the court waived the infant-compromise submission, they needed a ten-day extension to file the settlement stipulation. If the court required the submission, they requested thirty days.

Ruling

The court granted the requests. Based on the parties’ representation that E.G. was no longer a minor, the court waived the infant-compromise provisions of Local Civil Rule 83.2(a)(1). It also permitted the parties to file the settlement stipulation on or before February 14, 2025. The court cited its authority to excuse departures from its own local rules.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.