Fiallos v. Aviles-Ramos
Alexandra Fiallos, as parent and natural guardian of L.V., and Alexandra Fiallos, individually, et al. v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, et al.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-07281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Fiallos v. Aviles-Ramos: Judge Furman ordered service of the injunction motion and scheduled a conference without deciding the motion.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, and their counsel were affected by the service deadline, required conference, and possible filing described in the order.
What happened
In Alexandra Fiallos v. Melissa Aviles-Ramos, the plaintiffs filed a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court ordered them to email their motion papers and the order to the defendants’ counsel by 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 2025, and file proof of service by 10:00 a.m. the next day.
The court scheduled a remote telephone conference for September 5, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. The parties must be prepared to discuss a briefing schedule, whether discovery or an evidentiary hearing is needed, and whether a trial should be combined with the injunction hearing. They must also address whether all plaintiffs were properly joined and whether other pending cases create related-case issues.
Judge Jesse M. Furman allowed the defendants, but did not require them, to file a letter of no more than five pages by noon on September 5 addressing those issues. The order did not decide the plaintiffs’ request for emergency or preliminary relief.
The detailed version
- Fiallos v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-07281
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 4, 2025
Nature of the Order
The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief, while a preliminary injunction is relief that may remain in place while a case proceeds. The court did not rule on whether either form of relief should be granted.
Service Requirement
The court ordered the plaintiffs to serve the defendants, by email to the Office of the Corporation Counsel, with the motion papers and the order no later than 7:00 p.m. on September 4, 2025. The plaintiffs were also ordered to file proof of service on the docket no later than 10:00 a.m. on September 5, 2025.
Conference and Issues for Discussion
The court ordered the parties to attend a remote telephone conference on September 5, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. The parties were directed to be prepared to discuss the schedule for briefing the motion; whether discovery or an evidentiary hearing would be needed; and whether a trial on the merits should be combined with a preliminary-injunction hearing under Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The parties were also directed to address whether all plaintiffs were properly joined in the action. The order cited two other Southern District of New York cases discussing joinder issues involving claims concerning individual children’s pendency placements and funding. The parties were further directed to discuss issues raised by other still-open actions filed by some individual plaintiffs, including whether this action should be treated as related to any of those actions.
Additional Filing and Disposition
The defendants were permitted, but not required, to file a letter of no more than five pages by noon on September 5, 2025, addressing the plaintiffs’ motion and the other matters identified in the order. Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order was a case-management and preliminary-injunction procedure order: it required service and set a conference, but did not grant or deny the requested relief and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.