S.G. et al v. New York City Department of Education

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. Application denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 11. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Arun Subramanian on 7/3/2024) (vfr)

Download PDF
Case 1:24-cv-02360-AS Document 11 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 3 As of that Offer, Defendant has fully valued this case, and is confident that if the case goes to briefing, the Offer will serve to cut off any recovery for work performed beyond that date. Guided by recent fees decisions and recommendations from the S.D.N.Y., 2 Defendant has determined that not only would it be unable to obtain authority exceeding the Offer that it regards as both fully and intentionally overvalued to serve its intended protective intent to cut off any additional attorneys’ fees, but it would substantially nullify the purposes of the written offer provisions of the IDEA, rendering such offers the start, rather than necessarily the firm end, of settlement posturing by both sides. In short, should Plaintiff’s counsel be encouraged to take IDEA written offers, or Rule 68 offers of judgment, as merely an invitation to mediation or negotiation, the purpose and intended effect of such offers will be lost. I have conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel and we have agreed on the proposed briefing schedule below, in the event Plaintiff does not accept the Offer: Plaintiff’s motion due September 13, 2024. Defendants’ opposition due October 14, 2024. Reply due November 5, 2024. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court adjourn the conference scheduled for July 10, sine die, as well as the joint submissions due July 4. (III) the court or administrative hearing officer finds that the relief finally obtained by the parents is not more favorable to the parents than the offer of settlement. See e.g., S.B. v. DOE, 23-cv-3961 (PAE) (DOE offered $20,500.00, Judge Engelmayer “fee capped” at $19,454.38); S.C., 23-cv-1266 (LGS)(JLC) (R&R, Plaintiff’s Objections pending: DOE offered $35,000.00, Magistrate Judge Cott “fee capped” at $34,397.99); S.H.W., 21-cv-7003 (PGG)(OTW) (DOE offered $13,500.00, Judge Gardephe “fee capped” at $12,128.00); F.N., 21-cv-11177 (MKV) (DOE offered $25,000.00, Judge Vyskocil “fee capped” at $18,885.45); T.P., 22-cv-9413 (PAE) (DOE offered $23,000.00, Judge Engelmayer “fee capped” at $20,310.53); J.G., 23-cv-959 (PAE) (DOE offered $54,300.00, Judge Engelmayer “fee capped” at $53,050.13); M.B., 22-cv-6405 (JPC)(SN) (DOE offered $23,000.00, Judge Cronan “fee capped” at $19,174.40); Y.S., 21-cv-5878 (JPC) (DOE offered $32,100.00, Judge Cronan “fee capped” at $25,223.73); H.W., 21-cv-8604 (JLR) (DOE offered $27,434.00; Judge Rochon “fee capped” at $21,386.29); F.R., 22-cv-1776 (VEC)(GWG) (DOE offered $40,750.00 ; Judge Caproni “fee capped” at $39,760.37); E.W., 21-cv-11208 (VEC)(GWG) (DOE offered $38,000.01; Judge Caproni “fee capped” the award at $37,661.08); M.Z., 21-cv-9451 (AT) (DOE offered $16,000.00; Judge Torres “fee capped” the award at $15,819.86); N.A., 21-cv-2643(PGG) (DOE offered $29,720.00; Judge Gardephe “fee capped” the award at $26,500.05); M.R., 21-cv-5503 (VEC) (DOE offered $28,000.00; Judge Caproni “fee capped” the award at $25,840.94); V.W., 21-cv-6495 (PGG)(KHP) (DOE offered $27,500.00; Judge Gardephe “fee capped” the award at $27,340.47); K.E., 21-cv-2815 (KPF) (DOE offered $67,500.00; Judge Failla “fee capped” the award at $63,083.27); T.A., 21-cv-7104 (GHW) (DOE offered $20,256.90; Judge Woods “fee capped” the award at $19,079.50); R.P., 21-cv-4054 (JMF) (DOE offered $19,192.50; Judge Furman “fee capped” the award at $18,007.02); F.N., 21-cv-3379 (JPO) (DOE offered $21,022.50; Judge Oetken “fee capped” the award at $19,927.00); H.C., 20-cv-844 (JLC) (DOE offered $40,000.01; Judge Cott “fee capped” the award at $38,951.31). In each of the foregoing cases, plaintiffs were precluded from recovery fees for all work performed after the date of DOE’s written offers. 2 2 Case 1:24-cv-02360-AS Document 11 Filed 07/02/24 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for considering these requests. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Marina Moraru Marina Moraru, Esq. Special Assistant Corporation Counsel cc: Irina Roller (via ECF) 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?