Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2025

Deide v. Day

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:23-cv-03954
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Deide v. Day, Judge Roman granted plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their motion for attorney’s fees and costs and directed the clerk to terminate it.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their attorney-fee and cost motion was granted, and that motion was terminated; the order did not resolve entitlement to fees or costs.

What happened

In Deide v. Day, the plaintiffs asked to withdraw their pending motion for attorney’s fees and costs.

The plaintiffs said a recent Supreme Court decision, Lackey v. Stinnie, addressed the central issue in their fee request and likely affected the legal rule they had relied on. They notified the defendants of their intent to withdraw the motion.

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the request and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127.

The detailed version

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

Case
Deide v. Day · No. 7:23-cv-03954
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
June 16, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs had filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs. In a letter, their counsel asked to withdraw that motion and the supporting materials. The plaintiffs explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lackey v. Stinnie held that receiving a preliminary injunction does not make a plaintiff a party entitled to recover attorney’s fees under the applicable fee-shifting rule. The plaintiffs stated that this decision governed the central issue in their motion and likely affected the earlier precedent on which they had relied. They also stated that they had notified the defendants of their intent to withdraw the motion.

Ruling

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127. The order did not decide whether the plaintiffs were entitled to attorney’s fees or costs.

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.