Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 6, 2023

A.C. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:23-cv-00853
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In A.C. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.

Who this affects

A.C., her minor child N.C., and the New York City Department of Education; the case was closed after the parties reported an agreement in principle.

What happened

A.C., individually and on behalf of her minor child, N.C., sued the New York City Department of Education. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The parties told the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled scheduled conferences and other deadlines.

Judge Caproni dismissed A.C. v. New York City Department of Education with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, and directed the clerk to close the case. Within 30 days, the parties could ask to reopen it by showing good cause; they could also ask the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement by submitting the agreement and a request for continued jurisdiction.

The detailed version

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

Case
A.C. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-00853
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
June 6, 2023

Background

A.C. brought the case individually and on behalf of her minor child, N.C., against the New York City Department of Education. The order does not state the underlying claims or the requested relief.

Settlement and Court Action

On June 5, 2023, the parties notified the court that they had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The court canceled all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines.

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

Possible Reopening or Continued Jurisdiction

Within 30 days of the order, the parties could apply to reopen the case. The application had to show good cause for keeping the case open in light of the settlement, and a late application or one without a showing of good cause could be denied on that basis alone.

If the parties wanted the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their 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.

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.