D.A.B. et al v. New York City Department of Education
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER #104833. The plaintiffs' claim under New York Education Law is dismissed without prejudice. Because each of the plaintiffs' claims have now been dismissed, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and closing this case. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 10/2/2014) (rjm) Modified on 10/3/2014 (ca).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
D.A.B. AND M.B., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF D.B.,
Plaintiffs,
12 Cv. 4325 (JGK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER
- against NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:
The plaintiffs in this case, D.A.B. and M.B., originally
brought three separate claims based on the alleged failure of
the defendant New York City Department of Education to offer
their child, D.B., a sufficient educational opportunity for the
2010-2011 school year, including claims pursuant to the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.
§ 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and New York Education
Law § 4401 et seq.
On September 14, 2013, this Court granted
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the
plaintiffs’ IDEA claim.
The parties subsequently submitted
cross-motions specifically addressing the Section 504 claim.
September 22, 2014, this Court granted the defendant’s motion
dismissing the plaintiffs’ Section 504 claim.
The only
On
remaining claim in this case is the claim based on New York
Education Law § 4401 et seq.
In a September 30 letter submitted to the Court, the
defendant argues that the plaintiffs’ state law claim should be
dismissed in the interest of judicial economy due to the
potential preclusionary effect of this Court’s finding that the
plaintiffs were offered a free appropriate education (“FAPE”)
for the 2010-2011 school year, and that the plaintiffs waived
the state law claim by failing to address it in their briefs.
However, the previous rounds of motions were limited to
consideration of the IDEA claim and the Section 504 claim and
the parties did not move for summary judgment on the Education
Law claim, which remains pending.
Because both federal claims have been dismissed and the
state Education Law claim is the only clam remaining, this Court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.
See Cave v. E. Meadow Union Free Sch. Dist., 514 F.3d 240, 250
(2d Cir. 2008) (stating that it would be “clearly inappropriate
for the district court to retain jurisdiction over the state law
claims” after dismissal of IDEA claims).
The plaintiffs’ claim under New York Education Law is
therefore dismissed without prejudice.
Because each of the
plaintiffs’ claims have now been dismissed, the Clerk is
directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and closing
this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
October 2, 2014
_______________/s/_______________
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
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?