Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 25, 2020

Erde v. New York City Department Of Education

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-02946
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Erde v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla ordered plaintiffs to explain how a later appellate decision affects their complaint.

Who this affects

Susanne Erde and Michael Erde, individually and as parents and natural guardians of J.E., were required to file a supplemental letter brief explaining how the Second Circuit decision affected their complaint.

What happened

In Erde v. New York City Department of Education, the court considered how a Second Circuit decision affected the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs are Susanne Erde and Michael Erde, individually and as parents and guardians of J.E.

The court had previously required the plaintiffs to explain the decision’s effect on their complaint. Instead, they argued that the decision was not yet binding because rehearing requests were pending. After the Second Circuit denied those requests, the court ordered the plaintiffs to file another letter brief.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the plaintiffs to file the supplemental letter brief by July 3, 2020. This order did not decide whether the complaint was viable.

The detailed version

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

Case
Erde v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02946
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
June 25, 2020

Background

Susanne Erde and Michael Erde sued the New York City Department of Education individually and as parents and natural guardians of J.E. The court identified a May 18, 2020 decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education, as potentially affecting whether the complaint could proceed.

On May 19, 2020, the court ordered the parties to submit letter briefs addressing that decision’s effect on the complaint. In their May 29 letter, the plaintiffs did not explain how the complaint remained viable after the appellate decision. Instead, they argued that the decision was not yet binding because the parties in that case and related cases had sought panel rehearing and rehearing by the full court.

The court stayed this proceeding on June 9, 2020, while those requests were pending. On June 22, 2020, the Second Circuit denied the rehearing requests.

Order

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental letter brief by July 3, 2020. The brief must address how the Second Circuit’s decision affects the viability of the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Effect of the Order

The opinion is a case-management order requiring additional briefing. It does not state that the complaint was dismissed, and it does not decide whether the complaint is viable.

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.