Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 19, 2020

Franco v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-02925
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Franco v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla ordered supplemental briefs on how a Second Circuit decision affects the complaint.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs—Miriam Franco, Ramon Carmona, and K.C.—and the New York City Department of Education, all of whom must address the Second Circuit decision in supplemental letters.

What happened

In Franco v. New York City Department of Education, the court addressed a recent Second Circuit decision concerning the New York City Department of Education. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.

The court ordered both sides to file supplemental letter briefs by June 3, 2020. The briefs must explain how the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education affects whether the plaintiffs’ complaint can proceed.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide the complaint’s viability or resolve the parties’ underlying dispute in this order. The order only required additional briefing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Franco v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02925
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
May 19, 2020

Background

Miriam Franco and Ramon Carmona, individually and as parents and natural guardians of K.C., sued the New York City Department of Education. The opinion provides no further description of the claims or factual background.

Order

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 ordered the parties to file supplemental letter briefs by June 3, 2020, addressing how that decision affects the viability of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Disposition

The court did not rule on whether the complaint is viable and did not decide the underlying dispute. It issued an order requiring supplemental briefing.

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.