Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 8, 2024

S.B. v. New York City Department Of Education

Judge
Vyskocil
Docket
1:23-cv-07765
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In S.B. v. New York City Department Of Education, Judge Vyskocil discontinued the case after the parties reached a settlement in principle.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and the New York City Department Of Education were affected by the order discontinuing the case under the stated settlement-related conditions.

What happened

S.B. and the other plaintiffs sued the New York City Department Of Education. The opinion says the parties reported reaching a settlement in principle, but it does not describe the underlying claims or settlement terms.

The court discontinued the case without costs to either party. The dismissal was initially without prejudice to restoring the case if the parties could not put their settlement in writing.

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that any request to restore the case had to be made by June 8, 2024. If no such request was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
S.B. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:23-cv-07765
Judge
Vyskocil
Date
May 8, 2024

Background

The plaintiffs, identified in the caption as S.B., individually, and others, brought the action against the New York City Department Of Education. The opinion does not state the claims or facts underlying the lawsuit. The defendant informed the court 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. The order allowed the case to 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 June 8, 2024.

The court further ordered that if no application to restore the action was made by that date, the dismissal would be with prejudice. The opinion does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or describe the settlement terms.

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.