M.M. v. New York City Department of Education
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:20-cv-08249
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In M.M. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
The plaintiffs—M.M., C.C., T.P., and M.H., as identified in the caption—and the New York City Department of Education were affected by the dismissal and settlement-related directives.
What happened
M.M., individually and for C.C., and T.P., individually and for M.H., sued the New York City Department of Education. The parties told the court they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues, but the opinion does not describe the agreement’s terms.
The court cancelled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs—including attorneys’ fees—and directed the clerk to close the case and terminate pending motions. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen the case by showing good cause. They could also ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a specific request within that period.
Judge Valerie Caproni issued the order on March 19, 2021.
The detailed version
- M.M. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:20-cv-08249
- Valerie Caproni
- Mar. 19, 2021
Background
M.M., individually and on behalf of C.C., a child with a disability, and T.P., individually and on behalf of M.H., a child with a disability, brought the case against the New York City Department of Education. The opinion states that, on March 18, 2021, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. It does not state the agreement’s terms or the underlying claims’ details.
Court’s order
The court cancelled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines. It dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The order allowed the parties to apply to reopen the case within 30 days. Such an application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement; a late application or one lacking a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis. If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction—legal authority—to enforce the settlement agreement, they had to submit the agreement and request an order expressly retaining jurisdiction within the same 30-day period.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs and directed that it be closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.