Collado v. New York City Department Of Education
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-02943
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Collado v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Nathan denied reconsideration, holding Second Circuit precedent bound the court when issued.
Lisa Collado and C.M.’s claims against the New York City Department of Education remain subject to the earlier dismissal; the Department prevailed on the motion for reconsideration.
What happened
In Collado v. New York City Department of Education, Lisa Collado sought reconsideration of the court’s earlier decision denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing the case. The lawsuit concerned funding for C.M.’s pendency placement at iBRAIN during the 2018–2019 school year.
The plaintiffs argued that Second Circuit decisions relied on by the court were not binding until the appellate court issued its mandates. They said the court therefore erred by relying on those decisions to deny relief and dismiss the case.
The court rejected that argument and denied reconsideration. Judge Alison J. Nathan explained that a published Second Circuit decision is binding when issued, even before its mandate, and also noted that the issue had become moot because the mandates and other later proceedings had occurred.
The detailed version
- Collado v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02943
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
Lisa Collado, individually and on behalf of her child C.M., filed the action against the New York City Department of Education. The plaintiffs alleged that the Department’s failure to provide C.M. with a pendency placement violated federal and New York education law. They sought an order requiring the Department to fund C.M.’s pendency placement at the International Institute for the Brain, also called iBRAIN, for the 2018–2019 school year.
In a May 28, 2020 opinion and order, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the action. The court concluded that a Second Circuit decision issued while the preliminary-injunction motion was pending foreclosed the plaintiffs’ two primary arguments. The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Rule 6.3.
Reconsideration standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally granted only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another hearing on the merits.
Parties’ argument
The plaintiffs argued that the Second Circuit decisions in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Department of Education and Navarro Carrillo v. New York City Department of Education were not yet binding when the court issued its May 28 decision because the appellate mandates had not been issued. They contended that the court therefore erred by relying on those decisions to deny the preliminary injunction and dismiss the case.
Court’s reasoning
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ legal argument. It held that a Second Circuit panel decision is binding unless overturned by the full Second Circuit or the Supreme Court. The later issuance of an appellate mandate transfers the case back to the lower court; it does not determine when the appellate opinion becomes binding precedent. The court therefore concluded that it had not erred by following Ventura de Paulino.
The court also held that the plaintiffs’ basis for reconsideration had become moot. After the motion was filed, the Second Circuit denied rehearing in Ventura de Paulino, issued its mandate, and denied a motion to stay or recall the mandate. The Supreme Court later denied review. The Second Circuit also denied a motion to stay the mandate and issued the mandate in Navarro Carrillo.
Disposition
The court DENIED the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and stated that the ruling resolved Docket Number 40. The opinion does not reproduce the full reasoning from the earlier decision that dismissed the action.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.