Ambrister v. Banks
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-08403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ambrister v. Banks, Judge Clarke granted case-management requests, waived Rule 56.1 statements, and canceled the scheduled conference.
The plaintiffs, David C. Banks, the New York City Department of Education, and their counsel are affected by the adopted briefing schedule, the waiver of Rule 56.1 statements, and the cancellation of the April 2, 2025 conference.
What happened
Ambrister v. Banks concerns a challenge under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to an administrative decision about R.D.’s educational placement during the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 school years. The parties said the case should be decided using the certified administrative record.
The plaintiffs argued that the State Review Officer made legal and factual errors. The defendants argued that the decision was correct and should be upheld. The court did not decide those arguments in this order.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted the parties’ application, adopted their proposed schedule for summary-judgment motions, waived Rule 56.1 statement requirements, and canceled the April 2, 2025 conference.
The detailed version
- Ambrister v. Banks · No. 1:24-cv-08403
- Clarke
- Mar. 27, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs challenge a State Review Officer’s decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The dispute concerns whether R.D.’s unilateral placement at iBrain during the 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 school years was appropriate.
The State Review Officer partly reversed and partly upheld an impartial hearing officer’s decision. The State Review Officer reversed the finding that the defendants failed to offer R.D. a free and appropriate public education for June 11, 2021, through September 13, 2021, and ordered funding for the parents’ unilateral placement or program for that period. The State Review Officer upheld the finding that the defendants provided R.D. a free and appropriate public education from May 10, 2021, through June 10, 2021.
Parties’ Positions
The plaintiffs argued that the State Review Officer incorrectly applied the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, relevant case law, and New York education law, and made erroneous findings. The defendants argued that the decision was correct, well reasoned, and supported by the applicable law.
The parties jointly asked to cancel the initial pretrial conference and proceed through motions based on the certified administrative record. They proposed deadlines for the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the defendants’ cross-motion and opposition, the plaintiffs’ opposition and reply, and any defendants’ reply. They also jointly asked the court to waive Rule 56.1 statements because the case would be decided from the administrative record rather than through ordinary fact discovery.
Court’s Order
The court granted the application. It adopted the proposed briefing deadlines, waived the requirement that the parties submit Rule 56.1 statements, and canceled the conference scheduled for April 2, 2025, at 12:00 p.m.
This order did not decide whether the State Review Officer’s decision was correct, whether R.D. received a free and appropriate public education, or whether the plaintiffs were entitled to funding. It addressed scheduling and case-management matters only.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.