Collado v. New York City Department Of Education
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-02943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Collado v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Nathan denied both a stay request and plaintiffs’ conference request, leaving the preliminary-injunction motion pending.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ request for a conference and the defendant’s request to delay consideration of the preliminary-injunction motion; the preliminary-injunction motion itself remained undecided.
What happened
In Collado v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiffs asked the court to schedule a conference about their pending request for a preliminary injunction involving disabled student C.M.’s right to remain in the existing educational arrangement while the dispute continued.
The defendant asked the court to wait for guidance from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit before deciding the preliminary-injunction motion. The plaintiffs argued that this would improperly delay C.M.’s right to immediate interim relief.
Judge Alison Nathan denied both the defendant’s request to wait for the Second Circuit and the plaintiffs’ request for a conference. Judge Nathan stated that the court would decide the preliminary-injunction motion on its merits later.
The detailed version
- Collado v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02943
- Alison Nathan
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
The opinion is a letter from counsel for the plaintiffs responding to the defendant’s opposition to a request for a status conference. The conference concerned the plaintiffs’ pending motion for a preliminary injunction, filed July 29, 2019. The dispute involved disabled student C.M. and the asserted right under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to maintain the student’s existing educational arrangement while the dispute was pending.
The parties’ positions
The defendant asked the court to wait for guidance from the Second Circuit concerning three matters then pending before that court before making a final decision on the preliminary-injunction motion. The defendant also argued that C.M.’s withdrawal from school meant there was no actual or imminent harm.
The plaintiffs argued that the pendency provision operates as an automatic preliminary injunction and that immediate interim relief is essential to protecting that right. They also argued that waiting for the Second Circuit would effectively deny C.M. that protection for an extended period. The plaintiffs asked the court to deny the requested stay and grant their request for a conference, or alternatively to decide the preliminary-injunction motion on the papers promptly.
Ruling
The court denied the defendant’s request to await guidance from the Second Circuit before ruling on the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for a conference. The court stated that it would decide the preliminary-injunction motion on the merits in due course. The opinion therefore did not decide the preliminary-injunction motion itself.
Disposition
The defendant’s request to await Second Circuit guidance and the plaintiffs’ request for a conference were both denied. The preliminary-injunction motion remained pending.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.