Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 7, 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 ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Franco v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla ordered the Department to respond by July 15, 2020, to plaintiffs’ letter about possible dismissal.

Who this affects

Miriam Franco, Ramon Carmona, K.C., and the New York City Department of Education. The Department was required to respond to the plaintiffs’ letter by July 15, 2020, in a letter brief of no more than ten pages.

What happened

In Franco v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiffs argued that a Second Circuit decision did not require the court to dismiss their action.

The court ordered the New York City Department of Education to respond to the plaintiffs’ July 2, 2020 letter by July 15, 2020, in a letter brief of no more than ten pages.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued this order. The order did not decide whether the case should be dismissed.

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
July 7, 2020

Background

The court received a July 2, 2020 letter from Miriam Franco and Ramon Carmona. The letter argued that the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education did not require dismissal of this action.

Order

The court ordered the New York City Department of Education to respond to the plaintiffs’ letter by July 15, 2020. The response had to be a letter brief no longer than ten pages.

Effect

This was a procedural order requiring a response. It did not decide whether the action should be dismissed or resolve the underlying dispute. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.

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.