Abrams v. Carranza

Background

Elizabeth Abrams, as parent and natural guardian of A.A., and the other plaintiffs, referred to as the “Students,” sought a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the New York City Department of Education and Richard Carranza in his official capacity. They asked the court to require the defendants to implement administrative and judicial orders by immediately funding the Students’ placement at the International Institute for the Brain during their administrative and court proceedings.

The Students alleged that the Department had failed to fund certain school-related services, including special transportation and nursing services, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. They argued that their rights to continued educational placement required immediate payment of the withheld funds.

The Department did not contest the Students’ placements at the school. It argued that the Students were not all entitled to the same services, that it had not received invoices for some nursing services, and that the school had not provided enough information about its pandemic-related services to permit proper reimbursement. At the July 30, 2020 hearing, both sides agreed that the Students’ placements were not at risk and that the dispute concerned reimbursement for services allegedly provided since March.

Legal standard

The court stated that the standards for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are the same in the Second Circuit. To obtain either form of relief, the Students had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without an injunction, a balance of hardships favoring them, and that an injunction would not harm the public interest.

The Students argued that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provided an automatic injunction that eliminated the need to separately show irreparable harm. The court explained that the authorities supporting that argument involved situations where a student’s educational placement was threatened. Those cases addressed funding when cutting off funds would directly change the placement.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the present dispute did not involve a threat to the Students’ placements. The parties had agreed that the placements were secure. The remaining payment disputes included whether the school had supplied the information requested for reimbursement and whether the Department had to pay transportation expenses for a period when the Students were not using transportation services.

Because the dispute concerned payment rather than an imminent loss of educational services, the court concluded that the Students had not shown irreparable harm. The court stated that, if the Department failed to reimburse the school in a reasonable manner and within a reasonable time, the Students could seek remedies in the underlying case. Immediate payment through a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction was not warranted.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. The court also discharged the Order to Show Cause. The parties were instructed to continue conferring in good faith and to submit a status letter about any remaining disputes by September 4, 2020.