Moonsammy v. Banks

Background

In an earlier order, the court granted in part Cindy and Kemraj Moonsammy’s request for a preliminary injunction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s “stay-put” provision. That order required the New York City Department of Education to fund their daughter A.M.’s placement at the International Institute for the Brain, including tuition and transportation, beginning with the 2023–24 school year and continuing until the Moonsammys’ challenge to the Department’s April 20, 2023 individualized education program was resolved. The court had denied the request for immediate payment, instead requiring payment through the Department’s ordinary procedures.

The Department filed a notice of appeal from that order on July 3, 2024. It later applied to stay the order while the appeal was pending. In that application, the Department did not dispute that A.M.’s stay-put placement was at iBrain or that its funding obligation included tuition and transportation. It argued instead that funding should begin on December 6, 2023, when the Moonsammys filed their administrative due-process complaint. The Department had not raised that start-date argument in its earlier briefing on the preliminary injunction.

Court’s Analysis

The court stated that the Department’s new argument appeared to have been forfeited because it was not raised before the preliminary injunction was issued. The court nevertheless found the Department’s legal position persuasive, concluding that the stay-put funding obligation was triggered when the Moonsammys began the administrative proceedings. If the court had authority to act, it would have modified the injunction so that funding began on December 6, 2023.

The court held, however, that the Department’s timely appeal removed the district court’s jurisdiction over matters involved in the appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 allows a district court to suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction during an appeal only as necessary to preserve the status quo. Changing the funding start date would alter the status quo rather than preserve it. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the preliminary injunction while the appeal remained pending.

Disposition

The court did not modify the preliminary injunction in this order. It stated that jurisdiction could return if the Department withdrew its appeal or if the Court of Appeals remanded the relevant issues. The court directed the Department to file a letter by August 14, 2024, stating whether it would withdraw the appeal or seek a remand for this purpose, without prejudice to its right to appeal a modified order.