Mondano v. David C. Banks
Joseph Mondano, individually and as parent and natural guardian of L.M. v. David C. Banks, et al.
- Ricardo
- 1:24-cv-08241
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Mondano v. Banks, Judge Ricardo ordered more briefing and documents before deciding the parties’ summary-judgment motions concerning L.M.’s educational placement and transportation.
Joseph Mondano, L.M., and the defendants in the appeal were required to provide additional briefing and documents concerning L.M.’s educational placement, services, and special-education transportation.
What happened
Joseph Mondano, individually and as L.M.’s parent and natural guardian, appealed an amended order concerning L.M.’s educational placement and special-education transportation. The parties also addressed a later administrative decision and a separate court appeal involving overlapping issues.
The court said the existing briefs did not explain how those later proceedings affected this case. It asked the parties to address whether the appeals could proceed at the same time, whether the amended order had effectively merged into the later administrative decision, and which placement and services constituted L.M.’s legally required current placement.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo did not decide the summary-judgment motions. He ordered supplemental letter briefs, required the parties to submit specified educational records and settlement agreements, and scheduled oral argument for December 9, 2025.
The detailed version
- Mondano v. David C. Banks · No. 1:24-cv-08241
- Ricardo
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
Joseph Mondano appealed an August 2, 2024 amended pendency order issued by an impartial hearing officer. In special-education disputes, “pendency” concerns the educational placement and services that remain in effect while a dispute is being resolved. The opinion states that Mondano later appealed an August 30, 2024 finding of fact and decision, and that a state administrative review officer affirmed that decision on December 30, 2024. Mondano also appealed the administrative review officer’s decision in a separate proceeding.
The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding a case without a trial when the applicable legal and factual requirements are met. The opinion does not decide either motion.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court found that the briefing did not explain how the August 30 administrative decision, the December 30 administrative decision, or the separate appeal affected this case. The court directed the parties to address whether the two appeals could proceed simultaneously, whether the amended pendency order effectively merged into the August 30 decision, and whether the proper appeal was from that later decision instead.
The court also asked the parties to address the effect of overlapping issues in the two appeals. The defendants argued that any further appeal of the administrative review officer’s decision was time-barred, while that issue was also being litigated in the separate appeal.
Finally, the court requested explanations concerning which placement and services represented L.M.’s “then current educational placement.” The requested possibilities included the placement and services in L.M.’s 2023–2024 individualized education program, the placement and services in the 2024–2025 individualized education program, the placement and services actually operating when the administrative proceeding began, and the terms of settlement agreements identified by docket number in two related proceedings.
Court’s Action
Judge Henry J. Ricardo ordered the parties to submit supplemental letter briefs of no more than ten single-spaced pages by November 20, 2025. He also directed the parties to confer and jointly submit specified documents, including exhibits referenced in the amended pendency order, L.M.’s individualized education programs for the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 school years, and the two identified settlement agreements. The documents could be sealed or redacted under the court’s rules.
The court scheduled oral argument for December 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion therefore leaves the competing summary-judgment motions and the underlying appeal unresolved.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.