Deide v. Day

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 16, 2025
Docket7:23-cv-03954
StatusUnknown

This text of Deide v. Day (Deide v. Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deide v. Day, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

New York Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 19th FI. New York, NY 10004 (212) 607-3300 wwwnyeluorg == ocument ACLU of New York ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 6/16/2025 June 16, 2025

VIAECF Honorable Nelson S. Roman United States District Judge United States District Court, Southern District of New York The Honorable Charles L. Brieant Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse 300 Quarropas Street White Plains, New York 10601-4150 Re: Deide, et al. v. Day, et al., No. 23-cv-3954 (NSR/VR) Dear Judge Roman: We represent the plaintiffs in the above-referenced matter and write in response to the Court’s order, ECF 140, to respectfully withdraw the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs, ECF 127, along with the materials submitted in support of that motion. As the Court is aware, the Supreme Court recently decided Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659 (2025), which holds that “[a] preliminary injunction... does not render a plaintiff a ‘prevailing party.’” /d. at 671. This holding likely abrogates Second Circuit precedent upon which the plaintiffs relied in their fees motion holding that plaintiffs who are awarded a preliminary injunction are prevailing parties. See ECF 128 at 6-7 (citing Haley v. Pataki, 106 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 1997)). The plaintiffs have determined that Lackey v. Stinnie governs the central issue in their motion for attorney’s fees, and therefore submit this letter to withdraw that motion in lieu of filing supplemental briefing in support of that motion. The plaintiffs have notified the defendants of their intent to withdraw the motion. We thank the Court for its consideration. Plaintiffs’ request to withdraw their motion for . attorney's fees and costs is GRANTED. The Clerk Respectfully submitted, Court is kindly directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 127. 50 ORDERED: /s/ Ifevinwa Chikezie “° Se Dated: June 16, 2025 PO" □□ Ifeyinwa Chikezie White Plains. NY CL Amy Belsher he fans, NELSON S, ROMAN 125 Broad Street, 19th Floor United States District Judge

New York, N.Y. 10004 212-607-3300 ichikezie@nyclu.org

Counsel for the Plaintiffs

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Haley v. Pataki
106 F.3d 478 (Second Circuit, 1997)
Lackey v. Stinnie
604 U.S. 192 (Supreme Court, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Deide v. Day, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deide-v-day-nysd-2025.