Ferreira v. New York City Department of Education
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Denying plaintiff's motion 27 for reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Frederic Block on 1/8/2021. (Innelli, Michael)
Case 1:20-cv-01737-FB-SJB Document 31 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 480
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------x
JUSTINE FERREIRA, individually and as
Parent and Natural Guardian of N.R.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01737-FB-SJB
-againstNEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------x
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
KARL J. ASHANTI, ESQ.
Brain Injury Rights Group
300 E. 95th Street, Suite 130
New York, NY 10128
For the Defendant:
New York City Law Department
By: SHARON SPRAYREGEN, ESQ.
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
BLOCK, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff Justine Ferreira sought relief pursuant to a pendency petition under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j),
requesting that the Department of Education (“DOE”) fund her child N.R.’s
pendency placement at International Institute for the Brain (“iBRAIN”). While her
suit was pending, the issue raised by her petition was decided by the Second Circuit
in Ventura de Paulino v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 959 F.3d 519 (2d Cir. 2020).
The Second Circuit concluded that a parent “cannot determine unilaterally how
1
Case 1:20-cv-01737-FB-SJB Document 31 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 481
[their child’s] educational program is to be provided at the City’s expense.” Ventura
de Paulino, 959 F.3d at 536. The Court concluded in its June 5, 2020 Memorandum
and Order that “because Ferreira unilaterally moved N.R. to iBRAIN at her own
financial risk, she cannot seek relief under 20 U.S.C. 1415(j) to obtain pendency
funding for this unilateral decision.”
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration “is strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to
controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked – matters, in other words, that
might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Van
Buskirk v. United Grp. of Companies, Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). “It is well settled
that [a motion for reconsideration] is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues,
presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or
otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga
Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Sequa Corp. v. GBJ Corp.,
156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir.1998)). Ferreira has failed to identify controlling decisions
or data that were overlooked.
Ferreira moves for reconsideration principally on the grounds that the Second
Circuit’s decision in Ventura de Paulino is not binding. Initially, this was framed in
light of a then-pending petition for rehearing – later as a petition for rehearing en
2
Case 1:20-cv-01737-FB-SJB Document 31 Filed 01/08/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 482
banc – in the Second Circuit. After those petitions were denied by the Second
Circuit, the claim was framed around a petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court, which was filed on November 19, 2020. This Court will not engage
in judicial forecasting. It takes the law as it finds it and will apply the controlling
precedent of the Second Circuit. See Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express,
Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989) (“[A lower court] should follow the case which
directly controls, leaving to [reviewing courts] the prerogative of overruling [their]
own decisions.”). Ferreira’s contention that the Second Circuit’s decision in Ventura
de Paulino does not have binding effect lacks merit and must be rejected. See United
States v. Victor Teicher & Co., L.P., 785 F. Supp. 1137, 1150 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
(finding clear authority from the Court of Appeals binding even though a party
would be filing a petition for certiorari); see also Martin v. Singletary, 965 F.2d 944,
945 n.1 (11th Cir. 1992).
Plaintiff’s new argument that the DOE is retroactively liable for funding must
be rejected as it was not previously raised and improperly seeks to ignore the Second
Circuit’s controlling decision in Ventura de Paulino. See Sequa Corp., 156 F.3d at
144 (“Rule 59 is not a vehicle for … presenting the case under new theories”).
3
Case 1:20-cv-01737-FB-SJB Document 31 Filed 01/08/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 483
For the foregoing reasons, Ferreira’s motion for reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
_/S/ Frederic Block__________
FREDERIC BLOCK
Senior United States District Judge
Brooklyn, New York
January 8, 2021
4
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.
Why Is My Information Online?