Mauro v. New York City Department of Education
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-04372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 48
In Mauro v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Parker gave James J. Mauro more time to oppose the pending dismissal motion.
James J. Mauro, who was representing himself, received additional time to respond to the defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. The defendants’ motion remained undecided.
What happened
In Mauro v. New York City Department of Education, James J. Mauro, who was representing himself, did not file an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss by the original deadline. He filed another document instead.
The court gave Mauro additional time to respond. He had to file an opposition or a letter saying he did not oppose the motion by February 13, 2020. The court attached the defendants’ memorandum for his convenience and identified a legal clinic that assists people representing themselves.
Judge Katharine H. Parker warned that failing to follow the order could lead to dismissal for failing to move the case forward. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying discrimination claims.
The detailed version
- Mauro v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-04372
- George Daniels
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
James J. Mauro sued the New York City Department of Education and Marie Guillaume. The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Their motion sought dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The motion addressed Mauro’s asserted discrimination, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment claims under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
Mauro was representing himself. His opposition to the motion was due December 15, 2019. Instead of filing an opposition, he filed a Rule 26(a)(1) statement on December 17, 2019.
Order
The court provided Mauro additional time because he was representing himself. It ordered him to file an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, or a letter stating that he did not oppose the motion, by February 13, 2020. The court attached the defendants’ supporting memorandum for his convenience.
The court also noted that the New York Legal Assistance Group operated a legal clinic for people representing themselves and clarified that the organization was not part of or operated by the court. Mauro was encouraged to consult the clinic about responding to the motion.
Effect of the Order
The order did not grant or deny the motion to dismiss and did not decide whether Mauro’s claims were legally sufficient. It warned that Mauro’s failure to comply could result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward. The order was signed by Katharine H. Parker, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 48-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.