Fiallos v. Aviles-Armos
Alexandra Fiallos, as Parent and Natural Guardian of L.V., and Alexandra Fiallos, individually v. Melissa Aviles-Armos et al.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-07281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alexandra Fiallos v. Melissa Aviles-Armos, Judge Furman denied Fiallos’s temporary restraining-order request, reserved the preliminary-injunction issue, and ordered further filings.
Alexandra Fiallos and L.V.; the Department of Education and the other defendants; and iBrain, whose financial condition and continued services were discussed.
What happened
In Alexandra Fiallos v. Melissa Aviles-Armos, Alexandra Fiallos asked the court to require the Department of Education to make outstanding payments for tuition, transportation, and nursing services for the 2025–2026 school year. She said that without the payments, the student’s placement at iBrain could be threatened because the school was in financial difficulty.
The court viewed the request as a repeat of an earlier emergency motion seeking the same relief, which the court had already denied. It also said that the new allegations could have been presented earlier and that the motion appeared to be an improper request to reconsider the earlier decision.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the request for a temporary restraining order but reserved judgment on the request for a preliminary injunction. The court set deadlines for briefing and required the parties to address possible limited discovery, a comparison of the new and earlier filings, and the timing of Department of Education payments.
The detailed version
- Fiallos v. Aviles-Armos · No. 1:25-cv-07281
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
On October 9, 2025, Alexandra Fiallos filed her third emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. A temporary restraining order is short-term emergency relief; a preliminary injunction is relief that can remain in effect while a case proceeds. Fiallos sought an order requiring the Department of Education to immediately issue payments for outstanding tuition, transportation, and nursing services, where applicable, as continuing funding for the 2025–2026 school year.
The court noted that the new motion sought the same relief as Fiallos’s second emergency motion, which the court had summarily denied during a September 18, 2025 telephone conference. The court also observed that much of the new memorandum appeared to copy the earlier memorandum.
Arguments and Court’s Assessment
The principal new allegations concerned the financial condition of iBrain. Fiallos argued that denying relief could jeopardize the student’s placement because iBrain was in financial difficulty and at risk of closing. The court found those allegations difficult to credit because Fiallos’s counsel had recently acknowledged that there was no evidence the placement was at risk and had indicated that iBrain could go several months without payment before facing a risk of shutting down or evicting the student.
The court further stated that iBrain’s financial circumstances were known, or reasonably foreseeable, when Fiallos filed the earlier motion. It therefore characterized the new motion as appearing to be an improper motion for reconsideration and another attempt to obtain relief ahead of the ordinary process.
Ruling and Further Proceedings
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Fiallos’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The court reserved judgment on the motion for a preliminary injunction pending briefing; it did not rule on that preliminary-injunction request in this opinion. Defendants were directed to file any opposition by October 23, 2025, and Fiallos was directed to file any reply by October 30, 2025.
The court stated that limited discovery—fact-gathering before a decision—including possible questioning under oath of Fiallos’s declarant, might be appropriate regarding iBrain’s financial circumstances and health. The parties were ordered to confer and file a joint letter by October 15, 2025, addressing whether such discovery should be authorized and, if so, its scope and schedule.
The court also ordered Fiallos to file by October 15 a redlined comparison showing all differences between the earlier and current memoranda. The order stated that this would assist the defendants and the court in assessing whether sanctions might be appropriate for the refiling of a previously rejected motion. Defendants were ordered to report when the Department of Education anticipated making payments required by the existing pendency order and, if payment was not expected by October 22, to explain any further delay. Defendants were also directed to notify the court if or when the impartial hearing officer issued a ruling on Fiallos’s due-process complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.