S. v. New York City Department Of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-02134
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan ordered a response to a mediation request but did not decide the request.
The plaintiff and the defendant are affected by the order directing the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s request concerning mediation. The text does not show any change to the mediation requirement.
What happened
S. v. New York City Department of Education concerns the defendant’s request to be excused from court-ordered mediation in a case seeking attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The defendant argued that mediation would be unproductive and would create additional billable work.
The defendant asked the court to relieve the parties of the mediation requirement and to require a briefing schedule if the case was not resolved by August 20, 2021. The letter also described the defendant’s view of settlement negotiations and related fee cases involving the Cuddy Law Firm.
Judge Cronan ordered the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s letter by the stated deadline. The text provided does not show that Judge Cronan granted or denied the request to cancel mediation.
The detailed version
- S. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:21-cv-02134
- John Cronan
- Aug. 17, 2021
Background
The defendant’s counsel wrote to Judge Cronan about a case in which the plaintiff seeks only attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses for work performed during an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for work in the federal action. The court had previously ordered the parties to participate in mediation.
Defendant’s request
The defendant asked to be relieved of the mediation requirement. According to the letter, the defendant believed that the Cuddy Law Firm was unwilling to negotiate a settlement in good faith in this and other fee-only cases. The defendant argued that mediation would only generate additional billable hours and asked the court to require the parties to submit a briefing schedule by August 20, 2021, if the case was not resolved by then.
The letter described the defendant’s account of earlier settlement communications and cited other fee cases involving the Cuddy Law Firm. Those assertions were made by the defendant; the text provided does not show that the court adopted them as findings.
Court action
Judge Cronan directed the plaintiff to respond to the defendant’s letter by the stated deadline. The provided text does not contain a ruling granting or denying the request to cancel mediation, and it does not establish whether mediation remained required after the response deadline.
Disposition
The court’s action shown here is a directive for a response, not a decision on the parties’ underlying attorney-fee dispute or on the defendant’s request to end mediation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.