Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Maria Hidalgo and Abundio Sanchez brought this action individually and as parents and natural guardians of L.S., a 10-year-old child with developmental impairments resulting from a traumatic brain injury. They sued the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), seeking funding for L.S.’s placement at the International Institute for the Brain, or iBrain.

The IDEA requires school districts to provide eligible children with a free appropriate public education and requires educational programs to be described in individualized education programs. The Act’s “stay-put” or “pendency” provision generally requires a child to remain in the then-current educational placement while an administrative dispute is pending.

L.S. had attended the International Academy of Hope, or iHope, during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school years under a settlement agreement. That agreement provided that it could be renewed for up to two additional school years, including 2018–2019, and stated that it could not be used to establish the school or services as L.S.’s stay-put placement. The agreement nevertheless entitled L.S. to remain at iHope for the 2018–2019 school year, according to the court.

The parents gave the Department of Education notice of their intent to enroll L.S. at iBrain for 2018–2019. L.S. began attending iBrain, and the parents filed an administrative complaint alleging that the Department of Education had not provided her with a free appropriate public education. They also sought an order requiring the Department of Education to fund iBrain during the administrative proceedings.

An independent hearing officer ruled that L.S.’s stay-put placement was based on an earlier individualized education program. A state review officer largely affirmed but identified an even earlier individualized education program as the basis for the placement. The parents then filed this federal action and moved for a preliminary injunction requiring funding for iBrain.

Earlier order and motion

On October 29, 2019, the court denied the preliminary-injunction motion. It held that the IDEA did not allow parents to unilaterally move their child to a different school and require the Department of Education to fund that school when the agreed-upon placement remained available. The court also held that iHope was L.S.’s stay-put placement.

The parents moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. They argued principally that the earlier decision improperly deprived L.S. of stay-put funding because she could not obtain funding for education and related services at a school she had not attended. They also argued that the court had improperly relied on a prior district court decision because the facts were different.

Standard for reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration before final judgment is governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy that generally requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. The court also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which concerns altering or amending a judgment, did not apply because final judgment had not been entered.

Court’s analysis

After the earlier order, the Second Circuit decided Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education. The court stated that this decision confirmed its interpretation of the IDEA’s stay-put provision. Under that precedent, parents who unilaterally move a child from a stay-put placement to another school do not receive stay-put funding for the new school, even if the new school provides a substantially similar program. Parents who make such a unilateral change do so at their own financial risk.

The court explained that the stay-put provision protects the child from a school district’s unilateral change to an educational program during an educational dispute. It does not remove the school district’s authority to decide how and where to provide the agreed-upon educational program. The court therefore rejected the parents’ argument that the availability of a substantially similar program at iBrain entitled them to funding.

The parents also argued that Ventura de Paulino’s exception for an unavailable school applied because the Department of Education had not offered a placement that maintained L.S.’s educational status quo. The court rejected that argument because iHope remained available. It concluded that the parents’ decision to transfer L.S. from iHope to iBrain was an effective rejection of her stay-put placement and meant they were not entitled to funding for iBrain.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket Number 39, and the parties were ordered to file a letter updating the court on the case’s status by February 8, 2021.