Luo v. Baldwin Union Free School District
677 F. App'x 719
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jenn‑Ching Luo (pro se) sued Baldwin Union Free School District and staff under the IDEA and § 1983 seeking to compel placement of his child at a particular out‑of‑state school for the 2011–2012 year.
- Defendants Baldwin and Michelle Gallo filed an answer late; the district court accepted the late answer and denied Luo’s motion to strike it as untimely.
- An administrative process and prior litigation addressed the child’s educational plan and relied on a 2009 evaluation by Dr. Suozzi.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Baldwin and Gallo, concluding Luo could not obtain the specific school placement he sought and was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of reliance on Dr. Suozzi’s evaluation.
- Luo appealed both the denial of his motion to strike the late answer and the grant of summary judgment; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying motion to strike late answer / whether defendants showed excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) | Luo argued the late answer should be struck and default entered because defendants missed the deadline | Baldwin/Gallo argued their delay was excusable due to confusion from multiple pending actions and motions for reconsideration by Luo | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; excusable neglect found and striking (default) was an extreme sanction not warranted |
| Whether summary judgment was proper under the IDEA for defendants | Luo sought specific out‑of‑state school placement and challenged reliance on Dr. Suozzi’s evaluation | Defendants argued IDEA does not permit parents to dictate a specific school and collateral estoppel barred relitigation of the evaluation issue | Affirmed: IDEA does not grant veto over specific school; collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of reliance on Dr. Suozzi’s 2009 evaluation |
| Whether Luo was denied participation in the placement decision (procedural FAPE claim) | Luo claimed he was prevented from participating in decision‑making | Defendants pointed to Luo’s attendance at the CSE meeting and consideration of required factors | Held: Luo was not prevented from participating; procedural claim rejected |
| Standard of review for IDEA summary judgment and weight to administrative findings | Luo argued for de novo fact resolution | Defendants advocated deference to administrative process and weight to that record | Court applied de novo review but gave due weight to administrative proceedings; affirmed district court’s pragmatic application |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Sup. Ct.) (factors for excusable neglect)
- Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274 (2d Cir. 1981) (default judgment is a sanction of last resort)
- A.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bd. of Educ. Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2009) (standard for IDEA summary judgment review and deference to administrative findings)
- Proctor v. LeClaire, 715 F.3d 402 (2d Cir. 2013) (elements for collateral estoppel)
- T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009) (parents may not demand a specific school; placement concerns program not "bricks and mortar")