Montgomery v. New York City Department of Education
- John Koeltl
- 1:25-cv-06623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Montgomery v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Koeltl received the parties’ joint request to postpone the conference and set a summary-judgment schedule.
The plaintiffs, the New York City Department of Education, and Maria Aviles-Ramos in her official capacity are affected by the proposed schedule and requests described in the joint filing.
What happened
Montgomery v. New York City Department of Education concerns an appeal of an administrative decision involving claims for the 2019–2020 and 2023–2024 school years. The parties identified whether the earlier claims were time-barred and whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a free and appropriate education for the later school year.
The parties jointly asked the court to postpone the initial pretrial conference indefinitely because they believed the case could be resolved using motions based on the certified administrative record. They proposed deadlines for the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and the defendants’ cross-motion and asked to avoid formal discovery and written fact statements.
The November 5, 2025 filing does not show that Judge Koeltl granted or denied these requests. It is a joint submission to the court, not a ruling on the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Montgomery v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:25-cv-06623
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 5, 2025
Nature of the Filing
This document is a joint letter from counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for the New York City Department of Education and Maria Aviles-Ramos, in her official capacity. The letter concerns an initial pretrial conference scheduled for November 12, 2025.
Parties’ Positions and Proposed Schedule
The parties jointly requested that the initial pretrial conference be adjourned indefinitely. They stated that the case is an appeal of an administrative decision and that the issues include whether the plaintiffs’ claims for the 2019–2020 school year are barred by the statute of limitations and whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a free and appropriate education for the 2023–2024 school year.
The parties proposed resolving the case through motions for summary judgment based solely on the certified administrative record. They proposed that the plaintiffs file their motion by January 12, 2026; that the defendants file a cross-motion and opposition by March 12, 2026; that the plaintiffs respond by April 10, 2026; and that the defendants file any reply by May 11, 2026.
The parties also stated that no formal discovery was needed beyond filing the certified administrative record. They jointly asked the court to waive the required written statements addressing undisputed facts because, in their view, the case would function as an appeal from the administrative decision rather than as an ordinary trial involving disputed facts.
Court Action
The provided text does not contain an order or other ruling by Judge John G. Koeltl. It therefore does not show whether the court adjourned the conference, adopted the proposed schedule, waived the written fact statements, or ruled on any underlying claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.