Khanimova v. Banks
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:23-cv-09531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Khanimova v. Banks, Judge Ramos adjourned the conference, approved a summary-judgment schedule, and waived required factual statements.
The plaintiffs and defendants are affected by the adjourned conference, the approved briefing schedule, and the waiver of Rule 56.1 statements. The order did not decide the merits of the placement dispute.
What happened
Khanimova v. Banks concerns an appeal of an administrative decision about whether Student R.N.’s placement at iBrain during the 2022–2023 school year was appropriate. The parties disagreed about that question and proposed resolving the case using the administrative record rather than through a conference, mediation, or formal discovery.
The parties jointly proposed dates for the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the defendants’ cross-motion, and the parties’ responses. They also asked the court to waive Rule 56.1 statements, which ordinarily summarize undisputed facts in summary-judgment proceedings, because the motions would rely solely on the administrative record.
Judge Ramos ordered that the February 1, 2024 initial conference be adjourned, approved the proposed summary-judgment briefing schedule, and waived the Rule 56.1 statements. The order did not decide whether Student R.N.’s placement was appropriate.
The detailed version
- Khanimova v. Banks · No. 1:23-cv-09531
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 29, 2024
Background
The parties described this case as an appeal from an administrative decision by the Office of State Review. The dispute concerns whether Student R.N.’s unilateral placement at iBrain during the 2022–2023 school year was appropriate. The opinion states that the plaintiffs and defendants disagree on that issue.
The parties jointly told the court that an initial pretrial conference and mediation would not help resolve the claims. They proposed deciding the case through motions for summary judgment based on the certified administrative record. The plaintiffs were awaiting that record and anticipated receiving it by February 26, 2024.
Requested procedures
The parties proposed the following briefing schedule:
- March 18, 2024: plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment - April 8, 2024: defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment - April 29, 2024: plaintiffs’ opposition and further reply - May 7, 2024: defendants’ reply
They also stated that no formal discovery was required beyond filing the certified administrative record. Because the motions would be based solely on that record, the parties jointly requested that the court waive Rule 56.1 statements, which are factual statements typically submitted in connection with summary-judgment motions.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the February 1, 2024 initial conference be adjourned. He approved the proposed summary-judgment briefing schedule and waived the Rule 56.1 statements. The order did not resolve the underlying dispute about whether the placement was appropriate.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.