L.J. v. New York City Department of Education
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-07267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In L.J. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Ramos issued an unclear endorsement on defendants’ request to adjourn a conference in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act fee case.
The ruling concerns L.J., who seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and the defendants, including the New York City Department of Education, who requested an adjournment and proposed a briefing schedule.
What happened
L.J. v. New York City Department of Education concerns a request by the defendants to postpone a case-management conference in a lawsuit seeking attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for work connected to an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for the federal lawsuit. The defendants said the case presented only a fee application.
The defendants asked to adjourn the conference indefinitely, postpone the case-management-plan and scheduling-order deadlines, and set a briefing schedule for the fee application. They explained that they had made a written settlement offer and believed the offer could limit recovery for work performed afterward. The plaintiff did not agree to cancel the conference.
Judge Ramos signed an endorsement stating that the request to adjourn the conference was “d...” and marked it “SO ORDERED,” but the provided opinion text does not clearly show the completed disposition. The court therefore appears to have ruled on the request, but this text does not permit a reliable statement that the request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- L.J. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-07267
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 11, 2024
Background
The plaintiff seeks attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for legal work performed during an administrative hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and for work in this federal action. Defendants’ counsel asked the court to adjourn the case-management conference scheduled for January 12, 2024, indefinitely. The request also sought to postpone submission of a case-management plan and proposed scheduling order.
Defendants’ request
Defendants stated that the case involved only a fee application and that a conference would not be productive. They said they had served the plaintiff with a final written settlement offer on December 11, 2023, under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D). That provision can restrict an award of fees and related costs for services performed after a written settlement offer when specified conditions are met, including that the offer was timely, was not accepted within 10 days, and was at least as favorable as the relief ultimately obtained.
Defendants said they believed the offer was fully valued and could cut off recovery for work performed after the offer date. They proposed that the plaintiff’s motion be due February 29, 2024, defendants’ opposition be due March 29, 2024, and replies be due April 12, 2024.
Court action and disposition
Judge Edgardo Ramos signed an endorsement stating, “The request to adjourn tomorrow’s conference is d...” and then wrote “SO ORDERED.” The supplied text does not show the rest of the dispositive word or sentence. As a result, the court’s exact disposition—whether it granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the adjournment request—cannot be determined reliably from the provided opinion text. The text does not show a ruling on the amount of attorneys’ fees or on the underlying fee application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.