al. v. Aviles-Ramos
- Sarah Cave
- 1:25-cv-04029
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Diaz Baez v. Aviles-Ramos, Judge Cave granted the parties’ scheduling request, adopted their briefing schedule, and postponed the initial case-management conference.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Diaz Baez et al. v. Aviles-Ramos et al.; the order postpones their initial case-management conference and sets the schedule for their proposed summary-judgment motions.
What happened
Diaz Baez et al. v. Aviles-Ramos et al. concerns an appeal of an administrative decision about reimbursement for L.G.’s tuition, transportation, and nursing services during the 2023–2024 school year, along with a dispute about an administrative pendency order.
The parties disagreed about whether reimbursement was properly denied but jointly told the court that a conference and mediation would not help resolve the case. They proposed deciding the case through motions for summary judgment based on the certified administrative record, without formal discovery, and asked to postpone the conference.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the parties’ request, postponed the initial case-management conference scheduled for December 2, 2025, and adopted the proposed briefing schedule. The court said it would address the parties’ case-management plan in a separate order.
The detailed version
- al. v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:25-cv-04029
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
The parties jointly wrote to the court about case management. The case is an appeal from an administrative decision by the Office of State Review concerning whether the State Review Officer properly denied reimbursement for L.G.’s tuition, transportation, and nursing services for the 2023–2024 school year, when L.G. was unilaterally placed at iBrain. The case also concerns the effect of an administrative pendency order.
Parties’ Requests
The parties said that an initial case-management conference and mediation would not be useful because they disagreed about the reimbursement denial and the pendency order. They proposed resolving the case through motions for summary judgment based on the certified administrative record. Plaintiffs were waiting to receive that record and anticipated receiving it by December 30, 2025.
The proposed schedule required Plaintiffs to file their summary-judgment motion by January 29, 2026; Defendants to file their cross-motion and opposition by March 1, 2026; Plaintiffs to file their opposition and reply by March 23, 2026; and Defendants to file their reply by April 13, 2026. The parties also proposed filing the certified administrative record under seal, stated that no formal discovery was needed beyond filing that record, and jointly requested that the parties’ factual statements required by Local Civil Rule 56.1 be waived. They requested that the December 2, 2025 conference be postponed without setting a new date.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the parties’ request at Docket No. 26. The court postponed the initial case-management conference scheduled for December 2, 2025, adopted the proposed briefing schedule, and directed that the case-management plan would be addressed by a separate order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket No. 26.
This order addressed scheduling and case-management matters; it did not decide whether the reimbursement denial or the pendency-order issue was legally correct.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.