Juca v. Banks
1:24-cv-07154
| S.D.N.Y. | Dec 12, 2024Background
- Jhoana Juca (on behalf of her child K.A.) sought a preliminary injunction against David C. Banks (NYC Department of Education Chancellor) and the NYC Department of Education regarding K.A.’s educational placement and services during ongoing administrative and judicial proceedings under the IDEA.
- Juca requested confirmation that K.A.’s pendency (stay-put) placement should be at iBRAIN, including transportation and nursing services, and sought immediate direct payment of tuition by DOE.
- Shortly after the motion was filed, an Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) ruled that K.A. was indeed entitled to the requested pendency placement and services at iBRAIN.
- The amended complaint reiterated the requests, specifically seeking court orders for both declaratory and injunctive relief related to pendency and immediate funding.
- The DOE has not yet made the payment, but only a short period had elapsed since the IHO decision, and K.A.’s placement was confirmed.
- Defendants also moved to partially dismiss the complaint, but Plaintiff amended the complaint after this motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is K.A.'s pendency placement at iBRAIN? | Must be iBRAIN as per IDEA | Placement determined by IHO | Moot; IHO decision confirmed placement |
| Is Plaintiff entitled to immediate payment for pendency services? | Immediate payment required for K.A. to stay at iBRAIN | No entitlement to immediate payment; administrative process needed | No immediate payment required; motion denied |
| Does delay in payment constitute irreparable harm? | Delay will disrupt child's placement | DOE processes many requests; time required | No strong showing of irreparable harm |
| Should portions of the complaint be dismissed? | Opposed; amended complaint filed | Supported dismissal of some claims | Denied as moot due to amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Wie v. Pataki, 267 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2001) (explains when a case becomes moot by intervening events)
- Mendez v. Banks, 65 F.4th 56 (2d Cir. 2023) (no IDEA right to immediate payment; time needed for agency processing)
- Daileader v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London Syndicate 1861, 96 F.4th 351 (2d Cir. 2024) (movant must show strong irreparable harm for a preliminary injunction)