Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2024

Herrera v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:21-cv-07555
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Herrera v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the action after a settlement in principle, allowing restoration by May 23, 2024.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the New York City Department of Education, and Richard Carranza were affected by the conditional discontinuation of the action and adjournment of the trial and other deadlines.

What happened

Herrera v. New York City Department of Education involved plaintiffs Lois Herrera and others suing the New York City Department of Education and Richard Carranza. The court was informed that the parties had reached a settlement in principle.

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring it if the parties could not put their settlement in writing. Any request to restore the action had to be made by May 23, 2024. If no request was made by then, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The trial and all other dates and deadlines were adjourned indefinitely.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil issued the order on April 23, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Herrera v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-07555
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
Apr. 23, 2024

Background

The opinion identifies Lois Herrera and other plaintiffs as suing the New York City Department of Education and Richard Carranza. The court stated that the Magistrate Judge had informed it that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the settlement terms.

Ruling

The court ordered that the action be discontinued without costs to any party and without prejudice to restoring the action to the court's calendar. Restoration was permitted if the parties were unable to memorialize their settlement in writing, but an application to restore the action had to be made by May 23, 2024.

The order stated that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal of the action would be with prejudice. It also adjourned all other dates and deadlines, including the upcoming trial, indefinitely. The order did not decide the merits of the underlying claims.

Effect

The case was discontinued based on the parties' settlement in principle, subject to the stated deadline and conditions for restoration. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order in the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2024.

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.