BLACKMAN, et al v. DC, et al

Filing 2438

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 2436 the District's emergency motion to stay the December 13, 2013 Hearing Officer Decision and Order during pendency of appeal and request for expedited briefing schedule, without prejudice to the motion being refiled in the appropriate civil action. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on February 18, 2014. (lcplf1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
MIKEISHA BLACKMAN, et al.,

Civil Action No. 97-1629 (PLF)
Claim of Destaney Taylor

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the District of Columbia’s motion to stay the
December 13, 2013 hearing officer decision and order (“HOD”) relating to the educational
services provided to adult student Destaney Taylor pending the District’s appeal of the HOD.
Dkt. No. 2436 (Feb. 14, 2014). The plaintiff class has filed an objection to the stay motion. Dkt.
No. 2437 (Feb. 18, 2014). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the District’s
motion without prejudice to the motion being refiled in the appropriate civil action.
The appeal referenced in the District’s motion currently is pending before Judge
James E. Boasberg and Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. See District of Columbia v.
Taylor, Civil Action No. 14-0104. The District initially filed its stay motion in Civil Action No.
14-0104, consistent with the standard practice of seeking a stay of an administrative order in the
same case where the appeal is pending. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F. Supp.
2d 77, 89 (D.D.C. 2012); Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Chamberlain Campus v. Suggs,
562 F.Supp.2d 141, 143 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Nowhere in the IDEA . . . is there a . . . right of an

education provider to decline to implement a Hearing Officer Decision in a student’s favor
automatically, without seeking a stay of that Decision from either the Hearing Office or the
Court in which further proceedings have been commenced under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2).”)
(emphasis added). Filing the stay motion in the case involving the underlying appeal makes
logical sense, as determining whether a stay should be granted involves an inquiry into the merits
of the appeal itself. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009) (noting that a court must
consider “whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
the merits” of appeal) (internal quotation omitted); District of Columbia v. Vinyard, 901 F. Supp.
2d at 89 (same).
On February 14, 2014, the District withdrew its stay motion in District of
Columbia v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 14-0104, and refiled the motion in Blackman v. District of
Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1629. To explain this puzzling procedural move, the District
points to the undersigned’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Masucci, --- F. Supp.
2d ----, 2014 WL 331344 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014), which the District reads as requiring the
District to seek a stay of the December 13, 2013 HOD from the undersigned, rather than from the
judge presiding over the appeal of the HOD.
The District has misconstrued the Court’s decision in Masucci and apparently
failed to read the order that accompanied it. That decision resolved motions in two cases, one of
which was the District’s appeal of an adverse HOD, District of Columbia v. Masucci, Civil
Action No. 13-1008. See District of Columbia v. Masucci, 2014 WL 331344, at *8 (granting in
part the District’s motion for a stay, filed in Civil Action No. 13-1008). Importantly, the appeal

2

of the HOD, Civil Action No. 13-1008, was pending before the undersigned. By contrast, the
appeal of the December 13, 2013 HOD in this case remains before Judge Boasberg and
Magistrate Judge Robinson.1
The District’s confusion perhaps stems from the fact that Ms. Taylor has filed a
motion for preliminary injunction in Blackman v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No.
97-1629. See Dkt. No. 2419. In her preliminary injunction motion, Ms. Taylor argues that the
District breached its duty to timely implement the December 13, 2013 HOD. Id. at 2-3. The
Court notes that resolution of Ms. Taylor’s preliminary injunction motion likely will require
consideration of any stay proceedings in Civil Action No. 14-0104. See, e.g., Report and
Recommendation of the Special Master, Dkt. No. 2346 (Aug. 13, 2013) (recommending that the
Court postpone resolution of motion for preliminary injunction in order to consider the District’s
motion for a stay). But the preliminary injunction motion does not bring either the District’s
appeal of the December 13, 2013 HOD or the District’s request to stay that HOD within the
purview of the Blackman case. Those matters are properly resolved by Judge Boasberg or
Magistrate Judge Robinson, before whom Civil Action No. 14-0104 is pending.
Accordingly, it is hereby

1

The Court noted in Masucci that “[w]hen there is a dispute as to whether a HOD
must be implemented pending an appeal in federal court, such dispute typically is resolved in the
civil action in which the appeal has been brought.” District of Columbia v. Masucci, 2014 WL
331344, at *2 n.2 (citing District of Columbia v. Oliver, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2013 WL 6000889,
at *2 (D.D.C. 2013), and Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Chamberlain Campus v. Suggs,
562 F. Supp. 2d at 143).
3

ORDERED that [Dkt. No. 2436] the District’s emergency motion to stay the
December 13, 2013 Hearing Officer Decision and Order during pendency of appeal and request
for expedited briefing schedule is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the motion being refiled
in District of Columbia v. Taylor, Civil Action No. 14-0104.
SO ORDERED.

/s/________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge

DATE: February 18, 2014

4