Franco v. New York City Department of Education
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-02925
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Franco v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla ordered plaintiffs to explain how a Second Circuit decision affects their complaint.
Miriam Franco and Ramon Carmona, individually and as parents and natural guardians of K.C., were required to file a supplemental letter brief addressing the effect of the Second Circuit’s decision on their complaint.
What happened
In Franco v. New York City Department of Education, Miriam Franco and Ramon Carmona sued the New York City Department of Education individually and as parents and guardians of K.C. The opinion does not describe the claims in the complaint.
After the Second Circuit decided Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education, the court asked the parties to explain how that decision affected this case. The plaintiffs argued that the decision was not yet binding because rehearing requests were pending.
After the Second Circuit denied those requests, Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental letter by July 3, 2020, addressing whether their complaint remained viable. The order did not decide the complaint’s merits.
The detailed version
- Franco v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02925
- Katherine Failla
- June 25, 2020
Background
Miriam Franco and Ramon Carmona brought this case individually and as parents and natural guardians of K.C. against the New York City Department of Education. The opinion does not state what claims the complaint asserts.
On May 18, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education. On May 19, the court ordered the parties to submit letter briefs explaining how that decision affected the viability of the complaint.
The plaintiffs’ May 29 letter did not explain how the complaint remained viable after the Second Circuit’s decision. Instead, they argued that the decision was not yet binding because the petitioners in that case and related cases had requested panel rehearing and rehearing by the full court.
Court’s Action
On June 9, the court stayed this proceeding because the rehearing requests were pending. On June 22, the Second Circuit denied the requests for panel rehearing and rehearing by the full court.
On June 25, Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the plaintiffs to file a supplemental letter brief by July 3, 2020. The brief had to address how Ventura de Paulino affected the viability of the complaint. The order did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or otherwise state whether the complaint would proceed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.