J.T. v. De Blasio

• Citation: 500 F.Supp.3d 137
• Decision Date: 13 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20 Civ. 5878 (CM),20 Civ. 5878 (CM)
• Parties: J.T., Individually and on Behalf of D.T.; K.M., Individually and on Behalf of M.M. and S.M.; J.J., Individually and on Behalf of Z.J.; C.N., Individually and on Behalf of V.N. ; and, All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bill DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as the Mayor of New York City; Richard Carranza, in his official capacity as the Chancellor of New York City Department of Education; the New York City Department of Education ; the School Districts in the United States; and, State Departments of Education in the United States, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

500 F.Supp.3d 137

J.T., Individually and on Behalf of D.T.; K.M., Individually and on Behalf of M.M. and S.M.; J.J., Individually and on Behalf of Z.J.; C.N., Individually and on Behalf of V.N. ; and, All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,

v.Bill DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as the Mayor of New York City; Richard Carranza, in his official capacity as the Chancellor of New York City Department of Education; the New York City Department of Education ; the School Districts in the United States; and, State Departments of Education in the United States, Defendants.

No. 20 Civ. 5878 (CM)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed November 13, 2020

Peter Glenn Albert, Brain Injury Rights Group, Ltd., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Mark Galen Toews, Janice Louise Birnbaum, New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants Bill de Blasio, Richard Carranza, The New York City Department of Education.

Adam I. Kleinberg, Chelsea Ella Weisbord, Mark Anthony Radi, Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY, Fredric Paul Gallin, Methfessel & Werbel, PC, Dennis Michael Rothman, Lester, Schwab, Katz and Dwyer LLP, Mohammad Shihabi, Ford Harrison LLP, New York, NY, Jacqueline Wilson, James Garrison Evans, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, Jill M. O'Toole, Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, Johanna Gordon Zelman, Elizabeth Mott Smith, Ford Harrison, LLP, Daniel Joseph Raccuia, Day Pitney LLP, Hartford, CT, Bryan L. LeClerc, Berchem, Moses & Devlin, P.C., Milford, CT, Caroline Beth Lineen, Lewis R. Silverman, Silverman and Associates, White Plains, NY, Curtis Alan Johnson, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Rochester, NY, Kyle Kaiser, Attorney General, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant School Districts in the United States.

Darren P. Cunningham, Matthew I. Levine, Office of the Attorney General, Hartford, CT, Alissa Schecter Wright, Clement John Colucci, III, New York State Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, Harry J. Philips, Jr., Taylor Porter, Baton Rouge, LA, Kyle Kaiser, Attorney General, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant State Departments of Education in the United States.

Amy Dawn Demmler, Jonathan Brush, Rogers Morris & Grover LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant Austin Independent School District.

Sherry H. Culves, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants Atlanta Independent School System, Fulton County School District.

Martha J. Casserly, Minnesota Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendant Minnesota State Department of Education.

Eric A. Mentzer, Attorney General's Office, R. July Simpson, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA, for Defendants State of Washington, Washington State School for the Blind, Washington State School for the Deaf.

Beth L. Kaufman, Jeremy Miguel Weintraub, Schoeman Updike & Kaufman & Gerber LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant South Carolina Department of Education.

Adam S. Mocciolo, Pullman & Comley, LLC, Bridgeport, CT, for Defendant Connecticut Regional School District No. 10 (Harwinton & Burlington).

Corinne Elisabeth Atton, Matthew Eaton Draper, Draper & Draper LLC, New York, NY, Randall C. Farmer, Gregory, Doyle, Calhoun & Rogers, LLC, Marietta, GA, for Defendants Clayton County Public Schools, Cobb County School District, DeKalb County School District, Marietta City Schools.

Christopher Andrew Long, Litchfield Cavo LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants City of Bristol School District, Pentucket Regional High School, Town of Branford School District, Town of Clinton and Clinton Board of Education, Pomfret CT School District, Town of Plainville and Plainville Board of Education, Seymour Board of Education, Town of Watertown and Watertown Board of Education, Town of Windham and Windham Board of Education, Town of Groton and Groton Board of Education, Town of Wallingford and Wallingford Board of Education, Town of Plymouth and Plymouth Board of Education, Martha's Vineyard High School.

Alexander Thomas Korn, Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendant Pennsylvania Department of Education.

I Randall L. Winet, Winet Patrick Gayer Creighton & Hanes, Vista, CA, for Defendants Alpine Union School District, Bonsall Union School District, Borrego Springs Unified School District, Cardiff Elementary School District, Carlsbad Unified School District, Chula Vista Elementary School District, Coronado Unified School District, Dehesa School District, Del Mar Union School District, Encinitas Union School District, Escondido Union Elementary School District, Escondido Union High School District, Fallbrook Union Elementary School District, fallbrook union high school district, Grossmont Union High School District, Jamul-Dulzura Union School District, Julian Union School District, Julian Union High School District, La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Lakeside Joint School District, Lemon Grove School District, McCabe Union School District, Mountain Empire Unified School District, Ramona Unified School District, Rancho Santa Fe Elementary School District, San Diego County Office of Education, San Dieguito Union High School District, San Marcos Unified School District, San Pasqual Union Elementary School District, San Pasqual Valley Unified School District, Santee School District, Solana Beach Elementary School District, Spencer Valley Elementary School District, Sweetwater Union High School District, Vallecitos Elementary School District, Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District, Warner Unified School District.

Eric Labes Harrison, Methfessel & Werbel, Edison, NJ, for Defendants Cherry Hill Public Schools, Middletown Township Public Schools, West Orange Public Schools, Readington Township Public Schools, Certain School Districts Located in the State of Virginia, Certain School Districts Located in the State of California.

Ryan Patrick Driscoll, Berchem Moses PC, Milford, CT, for Defendants Town of Stratford Board of Education, City of Norwalk Board of Education, City of Stamford Board of Education, City of Bridgeport Board of Education.

Nicholas Miller, Jeremiah Charles Hollembeak, Jill Robb Ackerman, Baird Holm LLP, Omaha, NE, for Defendant Omaha Public School District.

OPINION & ORDER

McMAHON, Chief Judge:

This case purports to be a class action brought by the parents and/or natural guardians ("Parents") of students who are classified under federal law as disabled or having an educational disability ("Students") (collectively, "Plaintiffs").

The four plaintiff parents named in the caption of the complaint (Dkt. No. 1) ("Complaint") are from Staten Island, New York (K.M./M.M. and S.M.); Middletown, New Jersey (J.T./D.T.); Meriden, Connecticut (J.J./Z.J.); and Leander, Texas (C.N./V.N.). An appendix to the Complaint identifies approximately 100 additional "named plaintiffs" located in sixty-two separate school districts around the country.¹ (See Dkt. No. 1-12.)

The defendants specifically named in the caption of the Complaint include Bill DeBlasio, in his official capacity as the Mayor of New York City ("Mayor DeBlasio"); Richard Carranza, in his official capacity as the Chancellor of New York City Department of Education ("Chancellor Carranza"); and the New York City Department of Education ("NYCDOE") (collectively, the "NYC Defendants" or the "City"). The caption also purports to sue "THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE UNITED STATES" – over 13,800 of them² – and "STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES" – which would encompass all 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico – as listed in appendices to the Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 1-1 (School Districts); Dkt. No. 1-2 (State Departments of Education).)

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. ("IDEA"), disabled students are entitled to a "free appropriate public education" ("FAPE"). To guarantee students receive a FAPE, each student with disabilities has an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") that lays out the terms of his or her special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, and program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the student. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d). Under the IDEA, a local educational agency ("LEA") – most often, a school district – cannot alter a student's IEP without complying with certain procedural requirements, including notifying parents of any change. If a parent initiates an IDEA proceeding against an LEA, the IDEA's "stay put" or "pendency" provision requires that the child remain in his or her then-current educational placement until the proceedings are complete, unless the State or local agency and parent otherwise agree. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).

Plaintiffs allege that, when schools were shut down due to the public health emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic, every school district in the United States that went from in-person to remote learning (1) automatically altered the pendency placement of every special education student in the United States; and (2) ceased providing every one of those students with a FAPE, in violation of IDEA's substantive and procedural safeguards.

Approximately one month after filing this lawsuit, Plaintiffs’ counsel moved before the Part I judge for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction. The application for an immediate TRO was denied, with the Part I judge expressing grave doubt about the ability of this case to go forward in the posture proposed by Plaintiffs. At about the same time, some of the defendants around the country who had received service of process (or at least attempted service of process) began filing motions to dismiss the case, or indicated by letter their intent to do so.

In an effort to manage so unwieldy a lawsuit, this Court issued a number of orders to show cause, which were designed to tease out some of the many defects that seemed apparent, first to my colleague in Part I and then to me, from the face of the Complaint. The Court allowed Plaintiff...