Mendez v. New York City Department of Education

Background

A.C., whom the opinion describes as a student with developmental impairments, attended International Academy of Hope (iHOPE) during the 2017–2018 school year. An impartial hearing officer’s March 13, 2018 decision established iHOPE as A.C.’s pendency placement—the placement that must generally remain in place while a special-education dispute is pending.

A.C.’s parents notified the New York City Department of Education that they were placing A.C. in the International Institute for the Brain (iBRAIN) program for the 2018–2019 school year. They then filed a due-process complaint alleging, among other things, that the Department had not provided A.C. with a free appropriate public education for that school year. They also sought an order requiring the Department to fund iBRAIN during the proceeding.

On December 25, 2018, Impartial Hearing Officer John Farago decided that iBRAIN was A.C.’s pendency placement and directed the Department to fund it during the proceeding. The Department appealed. On March 26, 2019, State Review Officer Steven Krolak reversed that decision, including the pendency-funding ruling.

Claims and Arguments

The plaintiff brought this action on April 2, 2019. The requested relief included an order vacating the state review officer’s decision and requiring the Department to fund A.C.’s iBRAIN placement for the 2018–2019 school year until the due-process proceeding ended. The plaintiff also sought damages, a declaration that the Department violated A.C.’s rights, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other equitable relief.

The plaintiff argued that the case was not moot because damages remained available for an alleged violation of pendency rights. The plaintiff also argued that the case fell within an exception recognized by the Second Circuit for situations in which the prior school is no longer available and the school district does not provide pendency services. The plaintiff further argued that the Department could repeat the alleged violation in the future.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief was moot because the due-process proceeding had been resolved in the plaintiff’s favor and the Department had fully funded A.C.’s iBRAIN tuition for the 2018–2019 school year. The court also held that, because the tuition had been paid, no sufficiently immediate and real controversy remained to support declaratory relief.

The court rejected the damages argument based on the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education. That decision held that parents who unilaterally enroll a child in a new private school are generally not entitled to public funding for that school during a special-education dispute, even if the new program is substantially similar to the prior program. The parents make that choice at their own financial risk. Applying that reasoning, the court concluded that A.C. was not entitled to iBRAIN as a pendency placement and that there was no violation of the plaintiff’s pendency rights supporting damages.

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s proposed exception because iHOPE still existed and had been A.C.’s pendency placement. It found that the distinction between a placement established by operation of law and one selected by the Department did not alter the Second Circuit’s analysis. Finally, the court found no indication that the alleged violation was likely to recur as to A.C. or that any effects remained after the tuition was paid.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. It allowed any motion for attorneys’ fees to be filed by November 3, 2020, with opposition due November 17, 2020, and any reply due November 24, 2020.