D.A.B. et al v. New York City Department of Education, No. 1:2012cv04325 - Document 52 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
Court Description: 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).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
D.A.B. et al v. New York City Department of Education Doc. 52 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. On September 22, 2014, this Court granted the defendant s motion dismissing the plaintiffs Section 504 claim. The only Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
