Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 5, 2024

R.E. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-10116
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the IDEA fee action after a settlement in principle, subject to restoration by May 5.

Who this affects

R.E., P.E., and the New York City Department of Education were affected by the discontinuance. The parties had until May 5, 2024, to seek restoration if they could not put their settlement in writing.

What happened

R.E., individually and for P.E., sued the New York City Department of Education in an action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act concerning attorneys’ fees. The Department told the court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court discontinued the action without costs to either party. The court allowed the action to be restored if the parties could not put their settlement in writing and an application was made by May 5, 2024.

Judge Vyskocil ordered that if no restoration application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not state the settlement’s terms or amount.

The detailed version

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

Case
R.E. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-10116
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 5, 2024

Background

R.E., individually and on behalf of P.E., brought an action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) against the New York City Department of Education. The action concerned attorneys’ fees. The Department filed a letter stating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

Court’s Action

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party. It also ordered that the action could be restored to the court’s calendar if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, provided that an application to restore the action was made by May 5, 2024.

The order states that if no such application was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not describe the settlement’s terms or amount.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court discontinued the case based on the parties’ settlement in principle and did not decide the underlying attorneys’ fee dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.