Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2021

R.F. v. New York City Department Of Education

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:20-cv-06074
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In R.F. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs after an agreement in principle.

Who this affects

R.F., N.F., and the New York City Department of Education. The case was closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle, with no costs or attorneys’ fees awarded to either party.

What happened

R.F., individually and on behalf of N.F., a child with a disability, sued the New York City Department of Education. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues.

The court canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines and dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to close the case and terminate all open motions.

Judge Valerie Caproni allowed the parties 30 days to ask to reopen the case for good cause. During that period, they could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a specific request for continued jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
R.F. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:20-cv-06074
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 2, 2021

Background

On February 1, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the agreement.

Order

The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. “With prejudice” means the dismissal bars the case from being brought again. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.

The parties were given 30 days to apply to reopen the case. Any such application had to show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and had to be filed within that 30-day period. The court also stated that, if the parties wanted it to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same period.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and directed that it be closed. The order did not decide the underlying legal claims on their merits.

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.