Litrell et al v. New York City Department of Education et al
| Christopher Litrell, A.T., C.L., R.B. and J.M. |
| New York City Department of Education, City of New York and Mayor Bill De Blasio |
| 1:2021cv05457 |
| October 1, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Roanne L Mann |
| Kiyo A Matsumoto |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 20 U.S.C. § 1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 12, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Action Without Prejudice and Without Costs by A.T., C.L., J.M., Christopher Litrell, R.B. (Bhushan, Natraj) |
| Civil Case Terminated. (Williams-Jackson, Sandra) |
ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' #13 letter withdrawing their motion for preliminary injunction, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction is hereby WITHDRAWN. The parties are ordered to advise the Court whether the parties have agreed to voluntarily dismiss/withdraw the present action by 5:00 pm, close of business, October 12, 2021. If the parties have not agreed upon dismissal/withdrawal of the present action, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by 5:00 pm, close of business, October 14, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to comply with the administrative review process for challenging individualized education programs ("IEPs"). See J.R. by J.R. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 15-cv-364 (SLT)(RML), 2017 WL 3446783, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2017), aff'd sub nom. J.R. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 748 F. App'x 382 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted) (noting that "parents must exhaust the administrative review process before raising IDEA claims in a state or federal lawsuit."); see also Cave v. East Meadow Union Free Sch. Distr., 514 F.3d 240, 245 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(2)(A)) ("Failure to exhaust the administrative remedies deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction."). Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/8/2021. (Rodriguez Armenta, Elena)
|
| Filing 13 Letter Withdrawing Motion For Preliminary Injunction by A.T., C.L., J.M., Christopher Litrell, R.B. (Bhushan, Natraj) |
| Filing 12 DECLARATION re #6 Order on Motion for TRO,, Amanda Dasaro and Jeannine Mileto by A.T., C.L., Christopher Litrell, R.B. (Attachments: #1 Declaration) (Bhushan, Natraj) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah J. Sarokin on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Sarokin, Hannah) |
| Filing 10 DECLARATION re #6 Order on Motion for TRO,, of Lauren Siciliano by City of New York, Mayor Bill De Blasio, New York City Department of Education (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C) (Sarokin, Hannah) |
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re #6 Order on Motion for TRO,, filed by All Defendants. (Sarokin, Hannah) |
| Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto: Show Cause Hearing held on 10/4/2021. Appearances: Natraj Bhushan, Esq., for Plaintiffs. Andrew James Rauchberg, Esq., for all Defendants. The Court heard arguments from both parties regarding the Plaintiffs' ongoing request for preliminary injunction. The parties requested the opportunity to file supplemental materials. Accordingly, the Court will RESERVE a ruling on Plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction. All parties are expected to file declarations of individuals with knowledge. Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental submissions via ECF by 5:00 pm, close of business, October 6, 2021. Defendants shall file their responses, if any, by 5:00 pm, close of business, October 8, 2021. (Court Reporter Michele Nardone.) (Rodriguez Armenta, Elena) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew James Rauchberg on behalf of City of New York, Mayor Bill De Blasio, New York City Department of Education (aty to be noticed) (Rauchberg, Andrew) |
| Filing 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by A.T., C.L., J.M., Christopher Litrell, R.B. re #6 Order on Motion for TRO,, (Bhushan, Natraj) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER denying #5 Motion for TRO. As stated in the attached Order, Plaintiffs' temporary restraining order ("TRO") is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve a copy of this Order, and the papers upon which it is based, on Defendants by 6:00 pm on October 1, 2021. Any responding papers shall be filed via ECF on or before 9:30 am, October 4, 2021. All parties shall appear before the Court on October 4, 2021, at 2:30 pm, at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 10/1/2021. (Rodriguez Armenta, Elena)
|
| Filing 5 First MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by A.T., C.L., J.M., Christopher Litrell, R.B.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration In Support, #2 Exhibit Verified Complaint, #3 Exhibit Sample IEP, #4 Exhibit September 2021 Chancellor Letter, #5 Memorandum in Support Memo of Law In Support) (Bhushan, Natraj) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Natraj Bhushan on behalf of All Plaintiffs (notification declined or already on case) (Bhushan, Natraj) |
| Filing 3 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 2 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by All Defendants from Supreme Court of the State of New York Richmond County, case number 151831/2021. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANYEDC-14893012) (Attachments: #1 Removal Action Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet) (Toews, Mark) |
| Case Assigned to Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie and Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
| Case Reassigned to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto. Chief Judge Margo K. Brodie no longer assigned to the case. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Mahoney, Brenna) |
| This case has been opened in the Eastern District of New York. If you plan to continue representing your client(s), you must be admitted to practice before this court. You must do so by applying for Pro Hac Vice or permanent admission. To apply for Pro Hac Vice admission, you must first register for an ECF login and password. Please visit the Court's website at www.nyed.uscourts.gov/attorney-admissions for guidance. Once registered, you must electronically file a Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. You must pay the required pro hac vice fee online. (Bowens, Priscilla) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
