Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 3, 2020

Sugar v. Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:18-cv-00067
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sugar v. Greenburgh Eleven, Judge Briccetti extended Sugar’s deadline to retain counsel or oppose defendants’ settlement-enforcement motion.

Who this affects

The order affected Judy Sugar by extending her deadline to retain counsel or oppose the defendants’ motion, and affected Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District and Elton Thompson by postponing submission of their motion.

What happened

In Sugar v. Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District, the defendants asked the court to enforce an alleged settlement reached during a settlement conference. The plaintiff had been given time to retain new counsel and respond.

The plaintiff did not respond by the original deadline of March 31, 2020. The court extended the deadline to April 17, 2020, and said the plaintiff’s response was due whether or not she had found new counsel.

Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the extension and stated that the motion would be treated as unopposed if the plaintiff did not respond by April 17. He also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sugar v. Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District · No. 7:18-cv-00067
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 3, 2020

Background

Greenburgh Eleven Union Free School District and Elton Thompson filed under seal a motion to enforce a settlement agreement. They asserted that the agreement recorded settlement terms reached by the plaintiff and defendants on March 25, 2019, during a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge McCarthy.

The court’s January 24, 2020, order gave the plaintiff until March 31, 2020, to retain new counsel and/or oppose the motion. That order warned that the plaintiff’s opposition was due by that date whether or not she had retained counsel, and that the court could treat the motion as unopposed if she did not respond. The opinion states that the plaintiff had not opposed the motion by April 3, 2020.

Ruling

On its own initiative, the court extended the plaintiff’s deadline to April 17, 2020, to retain counsel and/or oppose the motion. The court reiterated that the opposition was due whether or not the plaintiff had retained new counsel and that it would deem the motion unopposed and fully submitted if she failed to respond by the new deadline.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not decide whether the settlement agreement should be enforced. The opinion refers to the filing as a motion to enforce a settlement agreement but later calls it a motion to dismiss; the court’s description is therefore inconsistent.

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.