Adams et al v. New York State Education Department et al, No. 1:2008cv05996 - Document 200 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: for 155 Motion to Dismiss filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Department of Education, City of New York, 149 Motion to Dismiss filed by Richard Mills, Deborah A. Marriott, New York State Education Department, 195 Repor t and Recommendations. For the reasons discussed above, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck dated February 23, 2010 (Docket No. 95) (the "Report") is adopted in its entirety, with the exception of the Report's recommendation that the Court not grant leave to file a third amended complaint, and the motions (Docket Nos. 149 and 155) of defendants New York State Education Department ("NYSED"), State Commissioner of Edu cation Richard Mills, Deborah A. Marriot, the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") and DOE Chancellor Joel Klein to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiffs Twana Adams, Josephina Cruz, Michael Ebewo, Joann Har t, Julianne Polito, Thomasina Robinson and Brandi Dawn Scheiner ("Plaintiffs") and for judgment on the pleadings are GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED that the Memo-endorsed Order of Magistrate Judge Peck dated November 16, 2009 (Docket No. 175) recommending denial of Plaintiffs' request for an extension of time to file a third amended complaint is not adopted and the objections of plaintiffs (Docket No. 179) are GRANTED; and it is finally ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty calendar days of the date of the Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to withdraw any pending motions and to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Victor Marrero on 4/6/2010) (tve) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/6/2010: # 1 Report and Recommendation) (tve).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.