L.V. v. New York City Department of Education
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-05451
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In L.V. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Torres granted in part and denied in part the Department’s motion to dismiss.
L.V., her minor child J.V.2, and the New York City Department of Education.
What happened
L.V., acting for herself and her minor child, J.V.2, sued the New York City Department of Education. The court considered a magistrate judge’s recommendation after no party objected.
The court adopted the recommendation in full. It granted in part and denied in part the Department’s motion to dismiss: part of Claim 1 and Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed without prejudice, while Claim 8 was dismissed with prejudice. The remaining allegations in Claim 1 concerning compliance with pendency orders and the stay-put provision were not dismissed by this order.
Judge Analisa Torres found no clear error in the recommendation and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- L.V. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-05451
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
L.V. brought the case on behalf of herself and her minor child, J.V.2, against the New York City Department of Education. The opinion concerns the Department’s motion to dismiss and a July 17, 2020 Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker. No objections were filed to that recommendation.
Court’s Review
Because there were no objections, Judge Torres reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the Department’s motion to dismiss.
- Claim 1 was dismissed without prejudice to the extent it included claims about the substance and formation of J.V.2’s individualized education plans. The dismissal did not extend to allegations about compliance with pendency orders and the stay-put provision. - Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were dismissed without prejudice. - Claim 8 was dismissed with prejudice.
“Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not itself bar refiling the claim; “with prejudice” means the dismissal bars refiling that claim. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 50. The opinion does not state a disposition for Claim 3.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.