Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 9, 2024

H. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:23-cv-03081
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In H. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Ramos canceled the initial conference and approved a schedule for the plaintiff’s fee motion.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the New York City Department of Education, because the court canceled their initial conference and set deadlines for the plaintiff’s fee motion.

What happened

H. v. New York City Department of Education concerns the plaintiff’s request for attorney fees, costs, and expenses related to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and this federal case.

The parties jointly asked to cancel the January 11, 2024 initial conference and set deadlines for the fee motion. The Department of Education said it had made a written settlement offer and believed the offer could limit recovery for work performed afterward.

Judge Edgardo Ramos canceled the initial conference and approved the proposed schedule: the plaintiff’s motion was due February 19, 2024, the defendant’s opposition was due March 21, 2024, and the plaintiff’s reply was due April 1, 2024.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
H. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-03081
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Jan. 9, 2024

Background

The plaintiff seeks attorney fees, costs, and expenses for legal work connected to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for this federal action. The opinion is a joint letter from the parties requesting changes to the case schedule.

The parties said that the defendant had served a final written settlement offer on October 3, 2023, under the Act’s provision concerning limits on attorney-fee recovery after certain settlement offers. The defendant stated that it believed the offer was sufficient to limit recovery for work performed after the offer. The letter also referred to prior Southern District of New York fee decisions and to an earlier related proceeding in which plaintiff’s counsel had been told to carefully consider reasonable settlement offers from the Department of Education.

The Parties’ Request

The parties jointly requested that the January 11, 2024 initial conference be canceled and that the court approve this briefing schedule:

- The plaintiff’s fee motion was due February 19, 2024. - The defendant’s opposition was due March 21, 2024. - The plaintiff’s reply was due April 1, 2024.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the January 11 initial conference was canceled. He approved the proposed briefing schedule for the plaintiff’s fee motion. The opinion does not decide the amount of fees, costs, or expenses, or whether the defendant’s settlement offer limits any recovery.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.