M.K. v. New York City Department of Education
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-07867
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In M.K. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Failla indefinitely postponed the conference, declined a briefing schedule, and ordered a case-status letter.
The parties and their attorneys were affected: the initial pretrial conference was postponed indefinitely, no briefing schedule was approved, and both sides were required to submit a joint case-status letter by January 26, 2024.
What happened
M.K. v. New York City Department of Education concerns plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees, costs, and expenses related to an administrative proceeding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and this lawsuit. The Department of Education asked to postpone the upcoming conference and related filing deadlines after making a written settlement offer; plaintiffs did not agree to the postponement or proposed briefing schedule.
The court postponed the initial pretrial conference indefinitely. It did not approve the proposed briefing schedule. Instead, it ordered the parties to file a joint letter updating the court about the case by January 26, 2024.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 11. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered the order on January 11, 2024.
The detailed version
- M.K. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-07867
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 11, 2024
Background
The defendant’s attorney asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference scheduled for January 18, 2024, and the parties’ joint submissions due January 11. The letter stated that plaintiffs seek only attorney fees, costs, and expenses for legal work performed in an administrative proceeding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for this federal action.
The defendant said it had made a final written settlement offer on January 2, 2024, under a provision of that Act concerning limits on fees for work performed after certain settlement offers. The defendant proposed a briefing schedule if plaintiffs did not accept the offer. Plaintiffs did not consent to postponing the conference and had not agreed to the proposed briefing schedule.
Court’s Action
The court postponed the initial pretrial conference indefinitely. It declined to approve a briefing schedule at that time. Instead, the court ordered the parties to file a joint letter providing a status update on the case by January 26, 2024.
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket number 11. The order did not decide the amount of attorney fees, costs, or expenses, and it did not rule on the defendant’s settlement offer.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.