de Jesus Rodriguez v. Banks
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-10356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In de Jesus Rodriguez v. Banks, Judge Failla ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to resend transportation documents without deciding whether they were legally required.
The plaintiffs and their counsel, the defendants and their counsel, and the court were affected because plaintiffs’ counsel had to retransmit transportation agreements and invoices by the stated deadline; the underlying reimbursement issue remained unresolved.
What happened
In de Jesus Rodriguez v. Banks, the parties disagreed about how much documentation was needed before transportation expenses for certain student plaintiffs could be reimbursed. The plaintiffs said they had already given the New York City Department of Education transportation agreements and invoices for M.C., S.C., and A.C.
The court did not decide what documentation the law requires. Instead, it directed the plaintiffs’ counsel to resend the documents to the defendants’ counsel and the court by January 3, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. The materials could be submitted under seal so that only the court and the parties could view them.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla issued the order in connection with a hearing scheduled for January 5, 2024. The order addressed the parties’ submissions and required the documents to be retransmitted, but it did not resolve the underlying reimbursement question.
The detailed version
- de Jesus Rodriguez v. Banks · No. 1:23-cv-10356
- Katherine Failla
- Jan. 3, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs are Janeris de Jesus Rodriguez, Linda Larach-Cohen, Claudia Rivas, Svetlana Khanimova, and Eileen Mendez, each suing individually and as a parent and natural guardian of a student plaintiff. The defendants are David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the New York City Department of Education.
The court was reviewing the parties’ submissions before a hearing scheduled for January 5, 2024. The parties disagreed about the amount of documentation that must be provided before transportation services qualify for reimbursement. The court noted that other judges in the Southern District of New York had considered the issue.
Issue
The court identified an unresolved question about the legal standard for the documentation required to obtain payment of transportation expenses. The plaintiffs represented in their reply that they had already provided transportation agreements and invoices to the Department of Education for M.C. on July 20, 2023, and for S.C. and A.C. on August 9, 2023.
Order
The court expressly did not decide whether the documentation was legally necessary for payment of transportation expenses. Instead, it directed plaintiffs’ counsel to retransmit the referenced documents to defendants’ counsel and to the court. The documents could be submitted under seal, meaning they would be viewable only by the court and the parties. The deadline was January 3, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.
Effect
This was an interim procedural order concerning the materials needed for the upcoming hearing. It did not resolve the underlying dispute over transportation-expense reimbursement or establish the legal standard for the required documentation. Judge Katherine Polk Failla signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.