Davis v. Aviles-Ramos

Background

The plaintiffs filed the case on September 11, 2025, and then filed three motions for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order intended to provide temporary relief while a case continues. The first motion sought expedited deadlines for the plaintiffs’ requests and a ruling that failure to meet those deadlines would automatically deny a free and appropriate public education. The court denied that motion during oral argument.

The second motion asked the court to require the New York City Department of Education and Melissa Aviles-Ramos to fully fund tuition, transportation, and nursing services for the 2025–2026 school year. The requested relief would have included pendency orders recognizing iBRAIN as the plaintiffs’ unilateral placement. The third motion sought immediate payment of outstanding tuition, transportation, and nursing expenses and largely requested the same relief as the second motion.

Rulings on the Second and Third Motions

At oral argument, the defendants stated that a pendency order had already been issued for one of the three student plaintiffs. In post-hearing letters, the defendants stated that pendency orders had been issued for all three plaintiffs, that partial payments had been made for one plaintiff, and that payments for the other plaintiffs were forthcoming in the ordinary course. The plaintiffs disputed the defendants’ approach to funding but did not dispute that each plaintiff had received a pendency order. The court treated the defendants’ statement as unopposed.

Because pendency orders had already been issued, the court denied as moot the plaintiffs’ requests for issuance of pendency orders. The court separately denied the request for immediate payment. It concluded that the cited authorities did not require the Department of Education to fast-track pendency payments and instead supported payment in the ordinary course.

Irreparable Harm

The court noted differing views among judges in the district about whether a plaintiff seeking pendency payment must show irreparable harm, meaning harm that cannot adequately be repaired later with money or another ordinary remedy. The court also questioned whether the plaintiffs could make that showing because, according to the defendants, delayed payments had not caused an iBRAIN student to lose a placement or face threatened disenrollment. The court did not resolve those questions because the motions were moot.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the plaintiffs’ second and third motions for a preliminary injunction. The order stated that no telephone conference was necessary. It also stated that the defendants had until December 29, 2025, to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at docket entries 6 and 11.