D.S.R. v. New York City Department Of Education

Background

D.S.R., L.R., and D.R. sued the New York City Department of Education for attorney fees and costs under the fee-shifting provision of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). D.R. is a minor child living with a disability, and D.S.R. and L.R. are D.R.’s parents.

The plaintiffs had started an administrative due-process proceeding alleging that D.R. was denied a free appropriate public education and challenging D.R.’s placement and Individualized Education Plan. Because D.R. had aged out of the current program, the plaintiffs also sought temporary placement during the proceeding. On September 11, 2017, an independent hearing officer issued a temporary-placement order requiring D.R.’s placement at the School for Language and Communication Development. The plaintiffs later amended their petition to seek permanent placement there.

A merits hearing was scheduled for February 7, 2018. On January 31, 2018, the Department of Education secured permanent placement for D.R. at that school. The plaintiffs’ counsel then withdrew the due-process claim, and the administrative case ended on February 28, 2018.

Procedural History and Issue

The plaintiffs filed this federal fee action on September 10, 2021. The Department of Education moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the attorney-fee claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Both sides agreed that a three-year limitations period applied, but they disagreed about when that period began.

The Department of Education argued that the period began on September 11, 2017, when the hearing officer issued the temporary-placement order. The plaintiffs argued that it began on February 28, 2018, when they withdrew the due-process complaint. The plaintiffs also argued that New York Executive Order 202.8 paused the limitations period for 228 days during the COVID-19 pandemic. Before this opinion, the court had denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal because they had not complied with the court’s pre-motion conference requirement.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that parents may receive attorney fees under the IDEA when they are a “prevailing party,” meaning they achieved success on a significant issue that provided some of the benefit sought and changed the parties’ legal relationship. The court rejected the Department of Education’s argument that the plaintiffs became prevailing parties when the hearing officer issued the temporary-placement order.

The court emphasized that the order was temporary and remained effective only while the proceedings continued. The fact that additional hearings were scheduled after the order showed that the administrative case had not ended at that point. The court also reasoned that requiring a party to pursue an attorney-fee claim before the underlying adjudication and the attorney’s work were complete would not make sense.

The court concluded that the withdrawal of the due-process complaint on February 28, 2018, was the final disposition of the administrative action before the hearing officer. It therefore held that the limitations period began on that date. The court noted that the record was unclear about when the Department of Education communicated the permanent-placement decision to the plaintiffs and when the parties may have reached an agreement, but the February 28 termination date was clear.

The court also held that Executive Order 202.8 applied because the three-year limitations period for the IDEA fee action was derived from New York law. The order paused the limitations period for 228 days. As a result, the court concluded that the complaint was filed on time. The court further noted that even using January 31, 2018—the date the Department of Education secured the permanent placement—the complaint would still have been timely after accounting for the 228-day pause.

Disposition

The court denied the Department of Education’s motion to dismiss. It directed the clerk to terminate the motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report about the next steps within 14 days of the order.