Toth v. City of N.Y. Dep't of Educ.
17-383-cv
| 2d Cir. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- Toth, on behalf of his minor son T.T., appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his IDEA claim as moot.
- DOE prepared IEPs for T.T.; Toth challenged the 2013 IEP for only 10 hours/week of ABA therapy.
- Administrative adjudicators rejected Toth’s challenge to the 2013 IEP.
- DOE later entered a resolution agreement on a different IEP requiring 15 hours/week of ABA therapy.
- District court dismissed, noting Toth did not argue the most current IEP lacked 15 hours of at-home therapy; remand sought 1,000 hours of compensatory ABA therapy.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Toth’s motion to supplement the record and vacated/remand the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispute is moot or capable of repetition yet evading review | Toth contends the case fits the repetitive yet evasive exception. | DOE argues the IEP change renders the claim moot. | Not moot as changed facts show potential repetition. |
| Whether the record should be supplemented on appeal | Toth seeks to include the 2016-2017 IEP and other documents. | Only the 2016-2017 IEP relevant; other documents unnecessary. | Partial grant of supplementation for the 2016-2017 IEP; other documents denied. |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing the claim | The claim remains live due to potential future IEP changes. | Mootness bars relief. | Reversed in part; remand for further proceedings. |
| Whether amendment to seek 1,000 hours of compensatory ABA therapy should be allowed on remand | Amendment would address past deficiencies via compensatory education. | Amendment would be futile or moot. | Remand allows district court to consider a properly pled amended complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Organization for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2013) (capable of repetition yet evading review)
- Suffolk County v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (mootness review standard)
- Tann v. Bennett, 807 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015) (mootness exception factors)
- Lillbask ex rel. Mauclaire v. Conn. Dep’t of Educ., 397 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (compensatory relief can defeat mootness)
- Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2015) (compensatory education as remedy)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. D.C., 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (interpretation of compensatory education)
- Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975) (extrinsic evidence in record consideration)