Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-02590
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Abrams ordered plaintiffs to clarify their proposed motion and warned of possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Maria Hidalgo, Abundio Sanchez, L.S., and the New York City Department of Education; the court required the plaintiffs to submit a clarification letter and warned that the action may be dismissed if they do not respond.
What happened
In Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education, Maria Hidalgo and Abundio Sanchez sought funding from the New York City Department of Education for their child L.S.’s enrollment at a private school for students with special needs. The court had previously denied their request for emergency relief and their request to reconsider that decision.
The plaintiffs said they intended to seek summary judgment to reverse the administrative decision denying funding. The court ordered them to explain what relief they were seeking and why it was not barred by the court’s earlier ruling and a later appeals-court decision. The plaintiffs did not meet the court’s March 31 deadline.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the plaintiffs to submit the requested letter by April 12, 2021. The court did not dismiss the case in this order, but warned that it may do so for failure to prosecute if the plaintiffs do not respond.
The detailed version
- Hidalgo v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-02590
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 5, 2021
Background
Maria Hidalgo and Abundio Sanchez brought the action individually and as parents and natural guardians of L.S., a 10-year-old child with developmental impairments stemming 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 enrollment at the International Institute for the Brain, a private school for students with special needs.
The court had denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on October 19, 2019. The plaintiffs then sought reconsideration. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision confirming the interpretation of the IDEA used in the court’s earlier ruling, the court denied reconsideration on January 8, 2021.
Proceedings Concerning the Proposed Motion
After the January ruling, the court directed the parties to update it on the case. The plaintiffs said they intended to file a motion for summary judgment, while the Department of Education asked the court to dismiss the action because the court had denied all relief requested in the complaint.
The court required the plaintiffs to explain the expected substance of their proposed motion and why the requested relief was not foreclosed by the January ruling and the Second Circuit’s decision. The plaintiffs later stated that the motion would seek reversal of the administrative order denying funding at iBrain. The court then ordered them to clarify the nature of the requested relief in light of its ruling that they were not entitled to pendency funding.
Order
The plaintiffs did not respond to the court’s order requiring a letter by March 31, 2021. The court ordered them to submit that letter no later than April 12, 2021. It warned that, if they did not respond, it may dismiss the action for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The order did not dismiss the action, decide the proposed summary-judgment motion, or award the requested funding.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.