Ferreira v. New York City Department Of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-02937
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education and Ferreira v. Carranza, Judge Furman denied reconsideration, except for one factual correction to a footnote.
Justine Ferreira and the defendants in the two related cases, including the New York City Department of Education and the New York State Education Department.
What happened
Justine Ferreira asked Judge Jesse M. Furman to reconsider earlier decisions in two related cases involving her child, N.R., and the child’s educational placement. In one case, the court had granted the Department of Education’s request for judgment and denied Ferreira’s request. In the other, the court had granted judgment to the Department of Education, denied Ferreira’s requests for judgment and an order requiring immediate action, and granted the New York State Education Department’s request to dismiss.
Ferreira argued that the Department of Education had not chosen the child’s placement at iHOPE, that an educational placement was different from a particular school, and that she did not have to prove iHOPE was unavailable. She also asked the court to remove a footnote that she said included unproven or inaccurate statements. The court rejected her arguments about the placement but agreed that one sentence about a confidential settlement lacked public confirmation.
In Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education and Ferreira v. Carranza, Judge Furman denied Ferreira’s reconsideration motions, except that he ordered an amended opinion removing the disputed sentence from the footnote.
The detailed version
- Ferreira v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02937
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 5, 2020
Background
The court was addressing two related cases brought by Justine Ferreira, individually and as parent and natural guardian of N.R. On March 2, 2020, the court had issued an earlier memorandum opinion and order.
In Case No. 19-CV-2937, the court denied Ferreira’s motion for summary judgment and granted the New York City Department of Education’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision resolving claims when the court determines there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial.
In Case No. 19-CV-8519, the court granted summary judgment to the Department of Education, denied Ferreira’s motion for summary judgment and request for a preliminary injunction, and granted the New York State Education Department’s motion to dismiss.
Ferreira filed nearly identical motions asking the court to reconsider those rulings.
Arguments about N.R.’s placement
The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration. It explained that reconsideration is generally not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, obtain another hearing on the merits, or take a second opportunity to argue the case. Generally, the moving party must identify a controlling decision or important information that the court overlooked.
The court rejected Ferreira’s argument that the Department of Education had not chosen iHOPE as N.R.’s placement location. The court said that point did not change the result because an impartial hearing officer had established iHOPE as N.R.’s appropriate placement in a June 20, 2018 order.
The court also rejected Ferreira’s argument that an educational placement is different from a school. Even if that distinction could matter, the court said Ferreira had not shown that she, rather than the school district, had the right to choose the child’s particular school under the circumstances presented.
Finally, the court rejected Ferreira’s argument that she did not have to prove iHOPE was unavailable. The court said Ferreira had unilaterally removed N.R. from iHOPE, which was adequately providing the educational placement last agreed upon for the child.
Footnote correction
Ferreira separately asked the court to delete Footnote 1 because she believed it contained unproven factual allegations and one inaccurate statement. The court noted that the footnote primarily recounted statements made by Ferreira’s counsel in similar cases.
The court agreed with Ferreira about one sentence describing another action as having ended in a confidential settlement. Although the letter quoted by the court referred to a confidential settlement agreement, the court acknowledged that there was no public confirmation that the parties actually executed that agreement. The court therefore agreed to issue an amended opinion removing that one sentence. It otherwise declined to amend or delete Footnote 1.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that Ferreira’s motions were denied, except that the court would issue an amended memorandum opinion and order removing the identified sentence. The clerk was directed to terminate the two docket entries associated with the reconsideration motions.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.