Z.C. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Figueredo
- 1:23-cv-08399
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Z.C. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Figueredo kept the January 9 conference scheduled and terminated Defendants’ motion seeking an adjournment.
Z.C. and the defendants in the fee dispute were affected by the court’s decision to keep the January 9, 2024 case-management conference scheduled and terminate the defendants’ motion at docket entry 19.
What happened
Z.C. seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for work performed during an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and in this federal case. The defendants said they had made a written settlement offer and believed it limited recovery of fees for work performed afterward.
The defendants asked the court to cancel or postpone the upcoming case-management conference and joint filing deadline, and to set a schedule for briefing Z.C.’s fee request. They argued that a conference would not be useful because of the settlement offer.
The court kept the initial case-management conference scheduled for January 9, 2024, and directed the clerk to terminate the defendants’ motion at docket entry 19. Judge Figueredo’s order did not decide whether Z.C. was entitled to fees or the amount of any fee award.
The detailed version
- Z.C. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:23-cv-08399
- Figueredo
- Jan. 5, 2024
Background
Z.C. seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for legal work performed during an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for work in this federal action. The defendants’ attorney stated that the defendants had served Z.C. with a written settlement offer on May 1, 2023. The defendants maintained that the offer would limit recovery of attorneys’ fees for work performed after the offer if the statutory conditions were met.
The defendants’ request
The defendants asked the court to adjourn the case-management conference and the parties’ joint submission deadline. They also proposed a schedule under which Z.C.’s fee motion would be due February 29, 2024, the defendants’ opposition would be due March 29, 2024, and replies would be due April 12, 2024. The defendants argued that a conference would not be productive because of the settlement offer and their view that the offer was intended to limit additional fee litigation.
The court’s action
The order did not adopt the requested postponement. It states that the initial case-management conference would be held as scheduled on January 9, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 19. The text provided does not include a ruling on Z.C.’s entitlement to attorneys’ fees, the amount of any award, or the legal effect of the settlement offer.
Classification and effect
This is a procedural scheduling order concerning a fee dispute. It affects the timing of the case-management conference and the defendants’ request to postpone it, but it does not resolve the underlying fee claim. Judge Valerie Figueredo issued the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.