Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District
- Nelson Roman
- 7:15-cv-09679-NSR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District, Judge Roman granted NYSED’s motion and dismissed Avaras’s claims against it without prejudice.
The ruling directly affects Connie Avaras’s claims against the New York State Education Department. The order does not state a disposition here concerning the other defendants.
What happened
In Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District, Connie Avaras sought review of a state education decision denying tuition reimbursement for her child’s educational expenses from the 2012–2013 through 2017–2018 school years. She brought claims against the New York State Education Department (NYSED) under federal special-education and disability laws.
NYSED asked the court to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Avaras told the court that she did not oppose the motion but wanted to preserve the possibility of amending her complaint again if she later found supporting facts.
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted NYSED’s motion and dismissed the claims against NYSED without prejudice. The court allowed Avaras twenty days to file a new complaint that properly states claims for which NYSED is a proper party; otherwise, the court said it would dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
The detailed version
- Avaras v. Clarkstown Central School District · No. 7:15-cv-09679-NSR
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 9, 2021
Background
Connie Avaras sued in her individual capacity and as the parent of N.A. The case concerned administrative decisions finding that the Clarkstown Central School District did not violate its duty to identify children who may need special-education services and offered N.A. an appropriate public education for the 2011–2012 and 2013–2014 school years. Avaras sought tuition reimbursement and transportation expenses for an alternative educational placement.
After a later remand concerning reimbursement under the pendency law, a hearing officer denied reimbursement for the 2012–2013 through 2017–2018 school years. A state review officer affirmed that decision. Avaras’s Third Amended Complaint sought judicial review of that ruling and asserted claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act against NYSED.
Motion and Analysis
NYSED moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 21 to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Avaras did not oppose the motion, but the court explained that it still had to review the motion’s merits.
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim against NYSED. Relying on its prior rulings in this case and a related proceeding, the court concluded that the State Education Department was not a proper party to a challenge concerning the sufficiency of individualized education programs provided by a local education agency. The court also stated that the Third Amended Complaint asserted nearly the same grounds for liability as earlier complaints that had been dismissed.
Disposition
Judge Nelson S. Roman granted NYSED’s motion and dismissed the Third Amended Complaint against NYSED without prejudice. The court permitted refiling within twenty days, provided any new pleading properly alleged claims for which NYSED was a proper party. The court stated that if Avaras did not replead properly or seek an extension with a showing of cause, it would dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 115 and 128.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.