IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-08924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations: Judge McMahon granted dismissal of injunctive claims and retained jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ agreement.
The parties to the consolidated cases and the agreement were affected: their remaining injunctive claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement during its term.
What happened
In Re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations involved consolidated cases concerning policing during the 2020 demonstrations. The parties jointly asked the court to dismiss the remaining requests for court orders requiring or prohibiting conduct and to keep authority to enforce their agreement.
The court granted the joint motion. It dismissed the remaining injunctive claims in the consolidated cases with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) and incorporated the parties’ stipulated agreement into its order.
Judge Colleen McMahon retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement for the duration of the agreement. The opinion does not describe a decision on the underlying claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS · No. 1:20-cv-08924
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
The filing concerns consolidated cases related to policing during the summer 2020 demonstrations. The opinion identifies related matters including Payne v. de Blasio; People of the State of New York v. City of New York; Gray, et al. v. City of New York, et al.; and Rolon, et al. v. City of New York, et al.
Parties’ Motion
The parties filed a joint motion asking the court to dismiss the injunctive claims with prejudice and retain jurisdiction. The proposed order refers to a stipulated order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which governs certain voluntary dismissals by court order. The agreement was attached as an exhibit, and the court incorporated its terms into the order.
Ruling
The court granted the joint motion. It retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement according to its terms for the duration of the agreement. Subject to the order’s terms, the court dismissed the remaining injunctive claims in the consolidated cases with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2).
Effect of the Order
The opinion addresses dismissal and enforcement of the parties’ agreement. It does not state that the court decided the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.