Carmona v. Carranza

Background

Defendants Richard Carranza, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the New York City Department of Education moved to stay, or pause, the case. They sought a stay until either the court ruled in the related case Franco v. New York City Department of Education, No. 19 Civ. 2925 (KPF), or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued guidance through several pending appeals.

The case involves Ramon Carmona and Miriam Franco, acting as parents and natural guardians of K.C., and their efforts to obtain pendency for K.C. at the International Institute for the Brain, referred to as iBrain. The court explained that both this case and the related case concern pendency at iBrain, but they involve different school years and different hearing-officer decisions. The related case concerned the 2018–2019 school year, after an impartial hearing officer determined that pendency was not appropriate. This case concerns the 2019–2020 school year and a different impartial hearing officer’s order granting pendency. Thus, the plaintiffs here sought to enforce an existing pendency order, while the plaintiff in the related case sought a pendency order for the first time despite a contrary hearing-officer decision.

Court’s Analysis

The court considered whether defendants had shown that they were likely to succeed on the merits, whether they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure plaintiffs, and where the public interest lay. The court did not decide the merits of the claims in either case. It concluded that the related case might result in a denial of relief while this case could still result in the relief sought because the proceedings involved different circumstances.

The court also rejected a stay based on the identified appeals. It stated that, if pendency placement at iBrain was appropriate or required because of the impartial hearing officer’s order, plaintiffs were entitled to an automatic preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that waiting for separate appeals could substantially delay adjudication of the plaintiffs’ pendency placement and could potentially deprive them of that injunction.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied defendants’ motion to stay. The court modified the briefing schedule for the pending motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, requiring defendants to file opposition papers by January 21, 2020, and plaintiffs to file reply papers by January 28, 2020.