Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02590
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Abrams ordered plaintiffs to say whether they would withdraw reconsideration after a Second Circuit decision.
The order directly affected Maria Hidalgo and Abundio Sanchez, individually and as parents and natural guardians of L.S., and required them to respond concerning their motion for reconsideration. The New York City Department of Education was the defendant.
What happened
In Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education, Maria Hidalgo and Abundio Sanchez sued the New York City Department of Education individually and as parents and guardians of L.S. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in detail.
The plaintiffs had filed a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier matter. The court directed them to say by June 1, 2020, whether they would withdraw that motion after a Second Circuit decision concerning pendency funding when parents moved children from iHope to iBrain.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide the reconsideration motion in this order. She ordered that, if the plaintiffs kept the motion, they must explain why the Second Circuit’s decision did not control this case.
The detailed version
- Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02590
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 28, 2020
Background
Maria Hidalgo and Abundio Sanchez brought the case individually and as parents and natural guardians of L.S. against the New York City Department of Education. The opinion provides no additional description of the underlying claims or the earlier ruling that the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider.
Order
The court referred to the Second Circuit’s May 18, 2020, decision in a separate case involving pendency funding. The Second Circuit held that parents were not entitled to that funding when they unilaterally moved their children from iHope to iBrain, stating that the City—not the parents—was authorized to decide how and where the students’ pendency services would be provided.
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a letter no later than June 1, 2020, stating whether they withdrew their motion for reconsideration in light of that decision. If they did not withdraw it, they had to explain why the Second Circuit’s decision did not control this action. This order did not itself grant or deny the motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.