R.V. v. New York City Department of Education
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-06837
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In R.V. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Caproni dismissed the settled case with prejudice and without costs.
R.V., her minor child I.A., the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, and Chancellor David Banks in his official capacity. The case was dismissed with prejudice without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party, subject to the stated 30-day procedures for reopening the case or requesting retained authority to enforce the settlement.
What happened
R.V. brought this case for herself and her minor child, I.A., against the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, and Chancellor David Banks in his official capacity. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court was told that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. It canceled all scheduled conferences and deadlines, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered that neither side would pay costs or attorneys’ fees. The parties may ask to reopen the case within 30 days if they show good cause.
Judge Valerie Caproni directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all open motions and close the case. She also said the parties could ask the court to retain authority to enforce their settlement agreement by submitting the agreement and a request within the same 30-day period.
The detailed version
- R.V. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:22-cv-06837
- Valerie Caproni
- Dec. 13, 2023
Background
R.V. sued on behalf of herself and her minor child, I.A. The defendants were the New York City Department of Education, the New York City Board of Education, and Chancellor David Banks in his official capacity. The order does not identify the claims or explain the underlying dispute.
Parties’ Agreement
The court stated that, on December 12, 2023, it was notified that the parties had reached an agreement in principle resolving all issues. The order does not provide the agreement’s terms.
Ruling and Case Status
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered that all previously scheduled conferences and other deadlines were canceled. She dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, including attorneys’ fees, to either party. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.
The parties may apply to reopen the case within 30 days of the order. Such an application must show good cause for keeping the case open despite the settlement and must be filed within that 30-day period. The court warned that a request filed later or without a showing of good cause may be denied solely on that basis.
If the parties want the court to retain jurisdiction—that is, continuing authority—to enforce their settlement agreement, they must submit the agreement under Rule 7.A of the court’s Individual Practices and request an order expressly retaining that authority within the same 30-day period.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.