Everett v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Everett v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan ordered Stephanie Everett to report any drafting assistance by July 24, 2023.
Stephanie N. Everett and the defendants, because the order addressed how the court would evaluate Everett’s filings.
What happened
In Everett v. New York City Department of Education, Stephanie N. Everett, who was representing herself, filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The order concerned possible legal assistance in preparing that opposition and her Second Amended Complaint.
The court ordered Everett to file a letter by July 24, 2023, stating whether she received assistance, who provided it, which documents it involved, and whether it covered all or only part of those documents. The court said she should not disclose other details about the assistance or any legal advice. It also directed the Clerk to mail her a copy of the order.
Judge John P. Cronan explained that receiving help was not improper, but that it could affect how the court interprets Everett’s filings. The order did not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Everett v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-07043
- John Cronan
- July 10, 2023
Background
Stephanie N. Everett, identified in the order as proceeding without a lawyer, submitted an opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court also referred to Everett’s Second Amended Complaint.
Order
The court ordered Everett to file a letter by July 24, 2023, addressing whether she received legal assistance in drafting either the Second Amended Complaint or the opposition. If she received assistance, the letter had to identify who assisted her, identify the documents on which she received assistance, and state whether the assistance covered all or only portions of those documents.
The court instructed Everett not to disclose other details about any assistance or any legal advice she received. It stated that receiving legal assistance in drafting the documents was not improper, but that whether she received assistance could affect how the court interprets the Second Amended Complaint and opposition. The Clerk was directed to mail Everett a copy of the order.
Disposition
This was a procedural order concerning the court’s treatment of Everett’s filings. It did not rule on the defendants’ motion to dismiss or resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.