Lopez v. New York City Department of Education et al

Filing 83

ORDER: Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' counsel shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on the pro se plaintiff by email at his last known email address, and shall follow up with a telephone call tomorrow morning. 2. The parties shall conduct a good-faith settlement discussion, in person or by telephone, and exchanged at least one good-faith demand and offer, before the Court-facilitated settlement conference begins. If by that 2:15 p.m. time (when the conf erence is scheduled to begin) they have not yet complied with these requirements, the Court will make a room available for that purpose. 3. Plaintiff is reminded that the overlength settlement letter (rendered in 9-point type) that he submitted in F ebruary of this year (together with multiple "artifacts") did not comply with the 1/31/23 Order, and that the Court is under no obligation to attempt to read it. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses on 4/26/2023) (vfr)

Case 1:17-cv-09205-RA Document 83 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
4/26/2023

PERRY LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
-againstNEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, et al.,

17-CV-09205 (RA) (BCM)
ORDER

Defendants.
BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge.
By Order dated February 24, 2023 (2/24/23 Order) (Dkt. 79), the Court granted defendants'
unopposed request to adjourn the parties' in-person settlement conference from March 1 to April
27, 2023, and directed plaintiff Lopez to update his settlement letter, as follows:
Plaintiff is reminded that the proceeding now rescheduled for April 27, 2023, is a
settlement conference, not a trial, and will take place over a span of hours, not days.
As difficult as it may be to "boil down" his surviving claims for discussion at the
conference, that is precisely what he must do to comply with this Court’s Order and
make efficient use of the opportunity. Thus, when plaintiff submits his updated
settlement letter, on or before April 20, 2023, it must be limited to six pages (in
12-point font) and may attach a maximum of 20 pages of exhibits.
Plaintiff is further reminded that his updated settlement letter must include a brief
description of the parties' settlement negotiations to date, including the date and
time of their last good-faith settlement discussion and the terms of each party's
most recent demand or offer.
2/24/23 Order, at 2 (emphasis added).
As of today (one day before the rescheduled conference), the Court has not received any
updated settlement letter from the plaintiff. Moreover, although the Department of Education has
submitted a timely settlement letter, there is no indication in that letter – or anywhere else in the
record of this case – that the parties conducted "at least one good-faith settlement discussion, in
person or by telephone," as required by the Court's Order Scheduling Settlement Conference, dated
January 31, 2023 (1/31/23 Order) (Dkt. 72), and no indication that either party conveyed to each

Case 1:17-cv-09205-RA Document 83 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 2

opposing party "at least one good-faith settlement demand or offer" since this conference was
scheduled, as is also required. See 1/31/23 Order ¶ 2.
These requirements, which are binding on both sides, are designed to ensure that the
upcoming Court-facilitated settlement conference – which requires a significant investment of time
and effort by the parties, their counsel, and the undersigned Magistrate Judge – is not a waste of
that time and effort. Consequently, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants' counsel shall promptly serve a copy of this Order on the pro se plaintiff

by email at his last known email address, and shall follow up with a telephone call tomorrow
morning.
2.

The parties shall conduct a good-faith settlement discussion, in person or by

telephone, and exchanged at least one good-faith demand and offer, before the Court-facilitated
settlement conference begins. If by that 2:15 p.m. time (when the conference is scheduled to begin)
they have not yet complied with these requirements, the Court will make a room available for that
purpose.
3.

Plaintiff is reminded that the overlength settlement letter (rendered in 9-point type)

that he submitted in February of this year (together with multiple "artifacts") did not comply with
the 1/31/23 Order, and that the Court is under no obligation to attempt to read it.
Dated: New York, New York
April 26, 2023

SO ORDERED.

________________________________
BARBARA MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge

2