08-6164 -cv

B.C. v . Co lton- Pierrepont CentralScho olDis trict

UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WHI C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y OR D E R , I N E A C H PA RAGRA P H I N WHI C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , AT L E A S T ONE CI T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R B E T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U ST SE R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T SU M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT PA YM E NT OF FE E ( S UCH AS T HE DAT ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: // W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO CO PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DATAB A SE, TH E CI T AT I ON M US T I NCL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A ta s t at ed t erm of the U ni t ed S t at es C our t of A ppeal s for the S econd C i r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 21 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and ni ne. st P RES ENT : RALP H K. W I NTE R,

R E E N A R A G G I, DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - B
. C
. , a chil d w i th a d i sabi l i ty , i nd i vidual l yand byhis p a re n t an d n e x t f

rie n d , L .C . an d L .C ., p a re n t an d n e x t f ri e n d , P lai nt i f f s -Appel l ees , v. N o. 08- 6164- cv CO LTON
- PI ERREPON T CEN TRA L SCHO OL DI STRI CT, D ef endant

-Appel lant .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- --- F O R A P P E L L A N T : E D W A R D J
. S A R Z Y N S K I, H o g a n , S a rz yn sk i, L yn c h , S u r o w k a & D e W i n d , L L P , J o h n s o n C i ty, N ew Y or k. F O R A P P E L L E E S : H. J E F F RE Y M A R CU S , L a w Of f i c e s o f H. J eff r eyM ar cus , W i l l i amsvi l l e, N ew Y or k.W e have j ur i s di ct i on o v er this a p peal pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. B eca us e the 1 di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed the part i es ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent , vaca t ed the SR O ’ s deci s i on, r emanded t o the I H O , and di s m i s s ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai ntw i thoutpr ej udi ce, the “i ndi ci a of f i n a l i ty ” r e q u i r e d t o c o n f e r a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u p o n th i s c o u r t a r e p r e s e n t . S o mo z a v . N. Y. C ityD ep ’to f E d u c., 5 3 8 F
. 3 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 2 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). 2 A p p ea l fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (D a v id N . H u rd , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D that t he j ud gm ent ent ered on N ov em ber 21, 2008 , i s V A C A T E D , and the case R E M A N D E D w ith in stru c tio n s th a t itb e d ism iss e d a s m o o t. De f e n d a n t C o l t o n - P i e r r e p o n t C e n tr a l S c h o o l Di s tr i c t ( “ C o l t o n ” ) a p p e a l s f r o m a N ovember21, 2008 j ud g m en t den y ing b o th p arti es’ m o ti o n s fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, v ac at i ng the dec i s i on of the St at e R evi ew O ffi cer ( “SR O ”) , and re m andi ng t o the I m part i al H ear i ng Of f i c e r( “ I HO” ) wi th i n s tru c t i o n s th a tth e I HO h o l d a n e w h e a r i n g o n p l a i nt i f f s ’ c l a i ms pur s uantt o t he I ndi vi dual s w i th D i s abi l i t i es E ducat i on A ct( “I D E A ”) , 20 U
. S. C
. § 1400 et seq . “W h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rtco rrectl yap p li ed the ID E A ’s s tatu toryan d reg u lat o ry provi s i ons t o the fa ct s of a pa r t i cul arcas e i s a mi xed ques t i on of l aw and fa ct , w hi ch w e

. . . r evi ew de novo. ” P. ex r el
. M r . & M r s . P. v. N ew i ngt on B d. of Educ. , 546 F. 3d 111, 118 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ; s ee L i l l bas k ex r el
. M aucl ai r e v. C onn. D ep’ tof Educ. , 397 F. 3d 77, 83 ( 2d C i r . 2005)
. I n doi ng s o, w e as s um e the part i es ’ fami l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and the r ecor d of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourdeci s i on. 1A l though pl ai nt i ffs cont end t hattheyhave notr ece i ved not i ce of C ol t on’ s appr oval 2 of thei rpet i t i on, C ol t on has s ubm i t t ed s w orn t es t i m onythatthe p eti ti o n h as, i n fac t , been a p p ro v e d . W e a c c e p t C o lto n ’s re p re se n tatio n a s tru e a n d c o n sid e r C o lto n to b e b o u n d b yit. 3 C o lto n su b m its th a t p lain tiff s’ c laim s s h o u ld b e d ism iss e d a s m o o t b e c a u s e a Ju ly 2 0 0 8 a m e n d m e n t to th e N e w Y o rk S tate E d u c a tio n L a w re n d e rs h o m e -sc h o o led stu d e n ts el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve s peci al educa t i on s ervi ces under the ID E A , s ee N
. Y
. E duc. L aw § 3602-
c ( 2
- c ) , a n d p lain tiff

s’ r e q u e st f

o r su c h se rv ice s h a s b e e n a p p ro v e d
. A lth o u g h “ [ a ] p a rty 2

see k ing to hav e a case d ism issed as m o o t bea rs a h ea v yb u rde n , ” L il lbas k ex rel. M au claire

v . C o n n . D ep ’to f E d u c., 3 9 7 F
. 3 d at 84 , w e a g ree that p lai n ti ff s’ ch all en g e to C o lt o n ’s f a ilu re to p ro v id e sp e c ial e d u c a tio n se rv ice s to h o m e -sc h o o led stu d e n ts n o lo n g e r p re se n ts
a l i v e c o n tr o v e r s y. “The vol unt aryces s at i on of al l egedl y i l l egal conductus ual l yw i l l r endera ca s e moot i f the def endantcan de m ons tr at e that( 1) ther e i s no r eas onabl e expec t at i on thatthe al l eged

v io latio n w ill re c u r a n d (2 ) in ter im r e lief o r e v e n ts h a v e c o m p lete lya n d irre v o c a b ly
er adi cat ed the ef

fec t s of the a ll eged vi ol at i on. ” Lam arA dver
. of Penn, L L C v. T ow n of O rc h a rd P a rk , 3 5 6 F .3 d 3 6 5 , 3 7 5 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is ru le appl i es w i th equal for ce w her e ce s s at i on of the cha l l enged c onducti s pr om pt ed bya cha nge i n the l aw . See, e. g. , H arr i s on & B urr ow es B r i dge C ons truct or s , I nc. v. C uom o, 981 F. 2d 50, 61 ( 2d C i r . 1992) ( “C ons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o s t atut es ar e r out i nel y fo u nd m ootw hen a statu te i s am en d ed
. . . . ”).4

I n l i gh t o f the J ul y2008 amendm entt o the N ew Y or k St at e Educat i on L aw ( the

“ A m e n d m e n t” ), w h ic h p ro v id e s th a t h o m e -s c h o o le d s tu d e n ts “ s h a ll b e d e e m e d to b e . . . s tudent [s ] enr ol l ed i n and att endi ng a nonpubl i c s chool el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve s ervi ces ” undert he ID E A , N .Y . E d u c . L a w § 3 6 0 2 -c (2 -c ), C o lto n n o w p e rm its h o m e -sc h o o led stu d e n ts to requestspeci al edu cat i on services for w hich it previ ou sl y deem ed them i neli gibl e. B ecause th e A m e n d m e n t ef

f e c tiv e lyp ro v id e s p lain tiff s w ith p re c ise lyth e re lief so u g h t in th is l i t i gat i on, i
. e. , a dec l ar at i on t hat B
. C
. i s ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve s peci al educa t i on s ervi ces under the I D E A notw i ths t andi ng hi s s t atus as a hom e- s chool ed s tudent , pl ai nt i ffs no l ongerhave
a s uffi ci entper s onal s t ake i n the out come of thi s cas e t o perm i t us t o r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on over the appe al
. See A B N A m r o V er zeke r i ngen B V v. G eol ogi s t i cs A m s . , I nc. , 485 F. 3d 85, 94 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ). A l though pl ai nt i ffs chal l enge t he adequac y of C ol t on’ s pr ovi s i on of s peci al educa t i on
se rv ice s d u rin g th e p e n d e n c y o f th is lit ig a tio n , th e y c o n c e d e th a t n o c laim f o r re lief o n th is b a sis is sta ted in th e c o m p lain t an d th a t th e iss u e is b e in g ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l. W e se e n o rea so n to d ep art f ro m th e “w ell -estab li sh ed g en era l ru le th at an ap p ell ate c o u rt
w i l l notcons i deran i s s ue r ai s ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , ” G r eene v. U ni t ed S ta t es , 13 F
. 3 d 5 7 7 , 5 8 6 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ), an d there fo re de cli n e t o v iew that claim as p rese n ti n g the s o rt
o f liv e c o n tr o v e rs yp re c lu d in g d is m is s a l. T he m er e fac t that the N ew Y or k l egi s l atur e i s fr ee t o r epea l the A m endmentdoes not al t erourm ootnes s concl us i on, part i cul ar l yas N ew Y or k i s not a partyt o thes e pr ocee di ngs5

and thus has no i ncent i ve t o m odi fythe l aw once l i t i gat i on has ended. See Lam arA dver
. of Penn, L L C v. T ow n of O r char d P ark , 3 5 6 F
. 3 d at376- 77. N orar e w e per s uaded thatt he

m e re p o ss ib ili ty th a t p lain tiff s w ill re c o u p a tto rn e y s’ f e e s is su f

f icie n t to sa lv a g e th is otherw i s e moot appea l
. See C ol eman v. N ew bur gh E nl ar ged C i ty Sch. D i s t . , 503 F. 3d 198, 204 n. 8 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ; L amarA dver
. of Penn, L L C v. T ow n of O r char d Par k, 356 F. 3d at 3 7 8
. I n s um , beca us e the r ece ntamendm ent t o the N ew Y or k St at e Educat i on L aw obvi at es pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s , and bec aus e C ol t on has been pr ovi di ng B
. C
. s peci al e d u ca t i on s ervi ces under the ID E A dur i ng t he ent i r e pende ncyof thes e pr ocee di ngs , the contr over s ypr es ent ed i n thi s appea l i s no l ongerl i ve. A ccor di ngl y , the N ovember21, 2008 j udgm entof the di s tr i ct
co u rtis V A C A T E D an d the c ase R E M A N D E D w ith instruction s tha t th e d istri ct co u rt d ism iss th e c a se w ith p re ju d ice a s m o o t.

FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt
B y :