Erde v. New York City Department Of Education
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-02946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Erde v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla ordered briefs on an appellate decision’s effect on reconsideration and the complaint.
The plaintiffs and the New York City Department of Education were required to file letter briefs addressing the Second Circuit’s decision and its effect on the pending motion for reconsideration and complaint.
What happened
In Erde v. New York City Department of Education, the court addressed a recent Second Circuit decision concerning the New York City Department of Education. The plaintiffs had a pending request asking the court to reconsider an earlier ruling and a pending complaint.
The court ordered both sides to file letter briefs by June 3, 2020. The briefs had to explain how the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education affected the plaintiffs’ reconsideration request and whether their complaint could continue.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order on May 19, 2020. The order required additional briefing but did not decide the reconsideration request or the complaint’s viability.
The detailed version
- Erde v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02946
- Katherine Failla
- May 19, 2020
Background
Susanne Erde and Michael Erde, individually and as parents and natural guardians of J.E., sued the New York City Department of Education. The opinion states that the plaintiffs had a pending motion for reconsideration and a pending complaint.
On May 18, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education. The district court directed the parties to address the effect of that decision on this case.
Order
The court ordered the parties to file letter briefs by June 3, 2020. Each brief had to explain how the Second Circuit’s decision affected the plaintiffs’ pending motion for reconsideration and the viability of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Disposition
The order required briefing. It did not grant or deny the motion for reconsideration and did not determine whether the complaint could proceed. This is a procedural order because it addressed further briefing rather than deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.