L.W. v. New York City Department of Education
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-09701
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In L.W. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Engelmayer postponed the pretrial conference, set briefing dates, and waived required factual statements.
The parties to L.W. et al. v. New York City Department of Education, including L.C.W. and the New York City Department of Education, are affected by the scheduling order and waiver of Local Rule 56.1 statements.
What happened
L.W. et al. v. New York City Department of Education concerns an appeal of an administrative decision about L.C.W.’s unilateral placement in Winston’s Online Program during the 2023–2024 school year. The parties said the case could be resolved using the certified administrative record, without discovery, mediation, or an initial pretrial conference.
The parties jointly asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference indefinitely and adopted a schedule for their motions for summary judgment. They also asked the court not to require Local Rule 56.1 statements, which generally describe the facts the parties contend are undisputed.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the parties’ requests: he postponed the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date, adopted the proposed briefing schedule, and waived the Local Rule 56.1 statements. The court did not decide whether the educational placement was appropriate.
The detailed version
- L.W. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:24-cv-09701
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 1, 2025
Background
This order concerns an appeal from an administrative decision about whether L.C.W.’s unilateral placement at Winston’s Online Program during the 2023–2024 school year was appropriate. The parties told the court that the case could be resolved through motions for summary judgment based on the certified administrative record. They stated that both sides had received that record and that no formal discovery was needed beyond filing it.
Requests by the Parties
The parties jointly requested that the initial pretrial conference be adjourned indefinitely because they believed the conference and mediation would be unnecessary. They proposed a briefing schedule under which the plaintiffs would file their motion for summary judgment on May 5, 2025; the defendant would file its cross-motion and opposition on June 9, 2025; the plaintiffs would file their opposition and reply on July 7, 2025; and the defendant would file any reply supporting its cross-motion on August 6, 2025.
The parties also jointly requested a waiver of Local Rule 56.1 statements. They explained that the case would be decided from the administrative record rather than through disputes about ordinary trial facts. They cited appellate decisions describing the summary-judgment procedure in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act cases as, in substance, an appeal from an administrative decision.
Court’s Action
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the parties’ proposed briefing schedule, adjourned the initial pretrial conference without setting a new date, and waived the submission of Local Rule 56.1 statements. The order addressed scheduling and case-management matters only. It did not decide the merits of the administrative appeal or whether L.C.W.’s educational placement was appropriate.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.