Melendez v. Carranza

Background

The order concerns three related cases. In 20 Civ. 1464, the court had held oral argument on March 5, 2020, and entered a stay while the Second Circuit considered three other cases. The Department of Education later asked the court to impose stays on the same grounds in 19 Civ. 8726 and 20 Civ. 823. The plaintiffs in 20 Civ. 1464 asked the court to vacate, or cancel, that stay and reopen the case. They also opposed the Department of Education’s stay requests in the other two cases.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a stay is discretionary rather than automatic. It considered four factors: the applicant’s likelihood of success, possible irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other interested parties, and the public interest.

The court concluded that the Department of Education had satisfied those factors. It was not persuaded that an order by an impartial hearing officer was final enough to trigger the special “stay-put” protection under the federal special-education statute, 20 U.S.C. § 1415. The court also stated that the Department of Education could not recover funds it paid while awaiting a final decision by a state review officer, but found no showing of harm to any student. It distinguished a Second Circuit decision involving a student’s most recently implemented and last-agreed placement because, in these cases, the Department of Education disputed that J.C. had remained in the last placement agreed upon by the parties. The court stated that three pending Second Circuit decisions would clarify the issue.

Ruling and effect

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the stay in 20 Civ. 1464. It granted the Department of Education’s motions to stay 19 Civ. 8726 and 20 Civ. 823. The clerk was directed to terminate the specified motions and issue stays in those two cases. The order addressed the timing and management of the litigation rather than deciding the underlying claims on their merits.