Neske v. Carranza
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-08817
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Neske v. Carranza, Judge Caproni dismissed the parents’ request for stay-put funding after applying binding Second Circuit precedent.
Dorothy and Christopher Neske, acting for A.N. and individually, and the named education defendants were affected; the case was dismissed and closed without the requested stay-put funding order.
What happened
In Neske v. Carranza, Dorothy and Christopher Neske sought an order requiring the New York City Department of Education to fund A.N.’s attendance at iBrain for the 2019–20 school year while an education dispute was pending. They argued that iBrain and A.N.’s former school, iHope, were substantially similar.
The court had previously rejected the same theory in a related case, and the Second Circuit later held that parents may not unilaterally move a child to a new school and then require the school district to pay for that school under the stay-put provision. The parents did not dispute that this precedent required dismissal, but argued that it was not binding until the appellate court issued its mandate.
Judge Valerie Caproni rejected that argument, stating that the appellate decision was binding before the mandate and noting that the mandate had since issued. The court dismissed the case, terminated all pending motions and deadlines, and directed the Clerk of Court to close it.
The detailed version
- Neske v. Carranza · No. 1:19-cv-08817
- Valerie Caproni
- July 20, 2020
Background
Dorothy Neske and Christopher Neske sued Richard Carranza in his official capacity, the New York City Department of Education, and the New York State Education Department. They brought the action as A.N.’s parents and natural guardians and also individually. They sought an order requiring the New York City Department of Education to fund A.N.’s attendance at the International Institute for the Brain, called “iBrain,” for the 2019–20 school year under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s “stay-put” or pendency provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).
The parents had unilaterally moved A.N. from the International Academy of Hope, called “iHope,” to iBrain. They sought funding based on their position that the two programs were substantially similar.
Prior and Appellate Authority
The court said it had rejected the same theory in the parents’ earlier related case involving the 2018–19 school year. The court explained that the stay-put provision does not allow a parent to unilaterally move a child to another school and immediately require the school district to fund the new placement while the child’s education dispute is pending.
The Second Circuit reached the same conclusion in a virtually identical case involving a student transferred from iHope to iBrain. It held that the parents failed to state a claim under the stay-put provision because they could not select a different school, enroll the child there, and then require the district to pay for that school under the provision.
Parties’ Argument About the Mandate
The court ordered the parents to explain why the action should not be dismissed in light of the Second Circuit’s decision. The parents did not dispute that the Second Circuit’s holding would require dismissal. Instead, they argued that the appellate decision did not have precedential effect until the Court of Appeals issued its mandate.
Ruling
The court rejected that argument. It held that an appellate opinion is not ineffective or nonbinding before the mandate issues and noted that the mandate had since been issued. Because the parents offered no other reason why the case should not be dismissed, the court found that the Second Circuit’s decision controlled and compelled dismissal. The court also stated that seeking funding for A.N.’s second year at iBrain did not change the analysis.
The court dismissed the case and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.