Mendez v. Banks
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-08397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mendez v. Banks, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by October 18, 2023, before dismissal with prejudice.
The plaintiffs, David C. Banks in his official capacity, and the New York City Department of Education; the case was discontinued based on the parties’ reported settlement in principle.
What happened
Mendez v. Banks involved Eileen Mendez, acting as legal guardian of A.C. and others, against David C. Banks in his official capacity and the New York City Department of Education. The defendants told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.
The court discontinued the case without charging costs to any party. The court allowed either side to ask to restore the case if the parties could not put their settlement in writing, but that request had to be made by October 18, 2023.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that if no request to restore the case was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice, meaning the case could not be reopened.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Banks · No. 1:22-cv-08397
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 19, 2023
Background
The opinion states that the defendants filed a letter informing the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the terms of the proposed settlement.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing. Any application to restore the action had to be made by October 18, 2023. The order further states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.