Davis v. Aviles-Ramos
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-07555
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Davis v. Aviles-Ramos, Judge Failla granted Defendants’ extension request to explain DOE’s position on pendency payments.
The defendants received the requested extension to submit their letter. The plaintiffs’ opposition to the extension was not accepted, and the underlying dispute about pendency payments was not resolved by this order.
What happened
In Davis et al. v. Aviles-Ramos et al., the defendants asked for until November 14, 2025, to submit a letter explaining the Department of Education’s position on whether it may withhold pendency payments before a pendency order is issued. The plaintiffs opposed the request and alternatively sought a shorter extension.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants already knew their position and had previously stated that a pendency order was unnecessary before payments could be made. The plaintiffs also argued that the Department of Education’s handling of pendency payments violated federal special-education law, but the court did not decide that issue in this order.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the defendants’ extension request, while stating that no further extensions would be granted. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 24.
The detailed version
- Davis v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-07555
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 4, 2025
Background
The defendants requested an extension until November 14, 2025, to submit a letter concerning the Department of Education’s position on whether pendency payments may be withheld until a pendency order is issued. Pendency refers to the requirement to maintain a student’s educational placement and related funding while an administrative dispute is pending.
The plaintiffs opposed the requested extension. They argued that the defendants had already stated their position during an October 29, 2025 hearing and had expressed a similar position in another case. The plaintiffs also argued that the Department of Education had improperly delayed or withheld pendency payments. Those arguments concerned the underlying pendency-payment dispute, not the extension request itself.
Ruling
The court stated that it was concerned about the length of the requested extension and how close to the deadline the request was made. Nevertheless, the court determined that it needed the defendants’ most up-to-date statement of their position. The court therefore granted the defendants’ extension request and stated that no further extensions would be granted. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 24.
The order did not decide whether a pendency order is legally required before pendency payments may be issued, whether the Department of Education violated federal law, or whether any party was entitled to injunctive relief.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.