UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------x
MARIA NAVARRO CARRILO and JOSE GARZON, on behalf of M.G. as p.n.g., and MARIA NAVARRO CARRILO and JOSE GARZON, individually, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiffs, 20-CV-1707(EK)(CLP)
-against-
RICHARD CARRANZA, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs, parents and their child, commenced this
action on April 6, 2020. Upon identifying a related case
proceeding before Judge Colleen McMahon in the Southern District
of York, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on May 15,
2020 as to why this case should not be transferred to the
Southern District for further proceedings. After reviewing the
parties’ responses, this Court finds that the action should be
transferred to the Southern District of New York pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
I. Background
Plaintiffs’ complaint is one of the many actions filed
in New York courts challenging DOE’s refusal to grant
educational funding under the Individuals with Disabilities
1
Education Act (IDEA) for students who transferred from iHope to
iBrain in recent years without prior authorization from DOE. 1
IDEA obligates the DOE to offer special-needs children a “free
and appropriate public education” (FAPE). 20 U.S.C.
§ 1400(d)(1)(A); see also Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,
207 (1982) (FAPE must be “reasonably calculated to enable the
child to receive educational benefits”). If parents believe DOE
failed to offer a FAPE for a given year, they may transfer their
child to a nonpublic school and then file an administrative
complaint seeking reimbursement for that year. 20 U.S.C. §
1412(a)(10)(C). Because these complaints take time to process,
students are entitled to receive interim funding during the
pendency of their application under Section 1415(j), provided
the student remains in their “then-current educational
placement.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j).
DOE reimbursed Plaintiffs for their child’s 2017-18
year at iHope. Compl. at ¶ 11, ECF No. 1. The following year,
Plaintiffs unilaterally transferred their child to iBrain. Id.
at ¶¶ 12-13. As they had done the previous year at iHope,
Plaintiffs sought to secure both pendency funding and
reimbursements for the upcoming 2018-19 term at iBrain. Id. at
¶ 16. On July 9, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an administrative
1iHope and iBrain are private schools for special-needs children. Complaint at ¶¶ 9-10, 13-15, ECF No. 1 (Compl.). 2
complaint claiming DOE failed to offer a FAPE and that the
child’s appropriate placement was at iBrain. Id. The complaint
also requested pendency funding under Section 1415(j). Id. DOE
ultimately denied both of Plaintiffs’ requests – for pendency
funding, and on the merits of final reimbursement for the year.
Those denials are the subject of this action.
On March 5, 2019, the initial hearing officer (IHO)
assigned to Plaintiffs’ case rejected Plaintiffs’ request for
pendency funding, finding the child’s educational program at
iBrain was not substantially similar to the one at iHope.
Complaint at ¶ 17, Navarro Carrilo v. New York City Dep’t of
Educ., 19-cv-2944, ECF No. 1 (Navarro I). Shortly thereafter,
Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York
seeking a preliminary injunction vacating DOE’s decision with
respect to pendency funding at iBrain for the 2018-19 year.
Navarro I, Complaint at 5, ECF No. 1. The case was assigned to
Judge McMahon. On June 13, 2019, Judge McMahon granted the
preliminary injunction, finding that iHope and iBrain were
“substantially similar . . . such that [the child’s] enrollment
in iBrain did not constitute a ‘change in educational
placement.’” Navarro I, Memorandum Decision & Order at 34, ECF
No. 19. Following Judge McMahon’s decision, on June 18, 2019,
DOE filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit and requested
that Judge McMahon stay the injunction while their appeal was
3
pending. Navarro I, Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 21; Navarro I,
Letter Motion to Stay, ECF No. 22. Judge McMahon granted the
stay on June 26, 2019. Navarro I, Order, ECF No. 29.
Meanwhile, DOE continued to process Plaintiffs’
request to be reimbursed for the 2018-19 schoolyear at iBrain.
On September 21, 2019, the IHO concluded that DOE was not
obligated to fund Plaintiffs’ tuition for the 2018-2019
schoolyear but ordered DOE to reimburse the parents for certain
expenses. Compl. at ¶ 19. Both parties appealed to the state
review officer (SRO). Id. at ¶ 20. On December 4, 2019, the
SRO sustained DOE’s appeal and dismissed Plaintiff’s cross-
appeal, granting total victory to DOE with respect to
reimbursement for the 2018-2019 schoolyear. Id. at ¶ 21.
Plaintiffs did not bring any legal action in immediate response
to DOE’s final decision on their 2018-19 application.
In the meantime, however, Plaintiffs brought two
additional complaints concerning pendency funding for the
following schoolyear, 2019-20. First, Plaintiffs filed an
action in the Southern District of New York seeking equitable
relief and damages arising from the “delay and/or failure” by
DOE to provide pendency funding for the 2019-20 schoolyear.
Complaint at 7, Navarro Carrilo v. Carranza, 19-cv-8077, ECF No.
11 (Navarro II). This action was referred to Judge McMahon as
related to Navarro I. See Navarro II, Related Case Affirmation
4
at 1, ECF No. 6. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action as
moot once DOE granted Plaintiffs’ request for pendency funding.
Navarro II, Letter at 1, ECF No. 48; Navarro II, Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal at 1, ECF No. 49.
With their remaining claim stayed before Judge McMahon
in the Southern District, Plaintiffs then turned to the Eastern
District of New York. After the DOE indicated that it would
appeal DOE’s decision to grant 2019-20 pendency funding to an
SRO, Navarro II, Letter at 1, ECF No. 50, Plaintiffs filed a
third complaint on April 1, 2020, which was assigned to Judge
Allyne R. Ross. Complaint, Navarro Carrilo v. New York City
Dep’t of Educ., 20-cv-1657, ECF No. 1 (Navarro Carrilo III).
Navarro III sought an injunction immediately implementing DOE’s
March 20, 2020 decision to grant pendency funding for the 2019-
20 schoolyear. Navarro III, Complaint at 8, ECF No. 1; Order to
Show Cause at 1-2, ECF No. 11. This claim has since been
dismissed, for reasons explained below.
Five days after commencing Navarro III, Plaintiffs
brought this action, also in the Eastern District (Navarro IV).
Unlike Navarro II and III, Navarro IV concerns the 2018-19
schoolyear – the same one at issue in Navarro I, which remains
stayed in the Southern District. While Navarro I challenged the
DOE’s refusal to grant pendency funding for 2018-19, Navarro IV
seeks to reverse DOE’s December 4, 2019 decision denying
5
Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement for the 2018-19 term,
Compl. at 7-8, including the SRO’s failure to “find reversible
error” in DOE’s refusal to grant pendency funding for the same
year. Id. at ¶ 24. Navarro I and IV thus challenge two points
in the same administrative process.
On May 18, 2020 the Second Circuit decided DOE’s
appeal in Navarro I in tandem with a similar appeal from another
case. Ruling in DOE’s favor, the Court reversed the injunction
in Navarro I, finding that parents who unilaterally transferred
their children from iHope to iBrain are not entitled to Section
1415(j) pendency funding. Opinion, de Paulino v. New York City
Dep’t of Educ., 19-cv-1662, ECF No. 149 (de Paulino).
Accordingly, Judge Ross dismissed Navarro III for failure to
state a claim, rather than transfer the case to the Southern
District. Navarro III, Order at 1, 3-4, ECF No. 24. Plaintiffs
then petitioned the Second Circuit for rehearing. See de
Paulino, Petition for Rehearing, ECF No. 162. The proceedings
in Navarro I, therefore, remain stayed.
II. Analysis
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil
action to any other district or division where it might have
been brought. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In deciding whether
to transfer an action under Section 1404, courts conduct a two-
6
part test. See Ahmed v. TJ Maxx Corp., 777 F. Supp. 2d 445, 448
(E.D.N.Y. 2011). First, the Court must find that the action
“might have been brought” in the transferee court. See id.; see
also Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1161 (2d Cir. 1978).
Second, courts consider whether the transfer would promote
convenience and justice. See Ahmed, 777 F. Supp. 2d at 448. In
doing so, courts weigh several factors, including “(1) the
plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses,
(3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of
access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5)
the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to
compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, [and] (7) the
relative means of the parties.” D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v.
Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2006).
Given the close physical proximity of the Southern and
Eastern Districts, courts typically find that convenience
considerations pose no bar to transfers between them. See
Ahmed, 777 F. Supp. 2d at 449 (“[M]ost courts ordinarily find
. . . that due to the close proximity” of the Eastern and
Southern Districts of New York, most convenience factors “are
relatively neutral with regard to transfer.”). Likewise, when a
plaintiff files related claims in multiple districts, the first
factor – the plaintiff’s choice of forum – will not be
dispositive. See Williams v. City of New York, 03-cv-5342(RWS),
7
2006 WL 399456, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2006) (noting that the
plaintiff’s choice of forum “is not at issue” because the
plaintiff “brought identical claims” in both districts).
This action is clearly related to the one pending
before Judge McMahon. Although the claims – one concerning
pendency funding, the other final reimbursement for the year –
are “conceptually distinct,” Doe v. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d
440, 447 (2d Cir. 2015), both actions contest the adequacy of a
single administrative process for the same child, for the same
year. Moreover, this action challenges the SRO’s refusal to
review DOE’s pendency determination for 2018-19, which is the
subject of Navarro I. These cases are therefore related, even
if they are not identical. See, e.g., Moskowitz v. La Suisse,
2006 WL 8439147, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2006) (deeming cases
related despite the fact that the actions “present[] new and
different claims”); see also MASTR Asset Backed Sec. Tr. 2007 v.
WMC Mortg. LLC, 880 F. Supp. 2d 418, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
(finding actions related because, although they were “not
identical,” they involved “the same parties,” the “same or very
similar” underlying issues, and “nearly identical fact
patterns”).
There is no doubt that Plaintiffs could have brought
this action in the Southern District, where their other action
is pending. Moreover, the “strong policy favoring the
8
litigation of related claims in the same tribunal,” Wyndham
Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614, 619 (2d Cir. 1968), militates
in favor of transfer. See also Cont’l Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-
585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960) (“To permit a situation in which two
cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously
pending in different District Courts leads to the wastefulness
of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to
prevent.”). The proper tribunal to hear Plaintiffs’ complaint
is the Southern District of New York, where Plaintiffs filed
first. See First City Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Simmons, 878 F.2d
76, 80 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting the “well-settled principle
favoring the forum wherein a [related] suit was first filed”).
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, this action is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk of Court is
directed to transfer this case to the Southern District of New
9
York. Local Rule 83.1 of the Eastern District of New York,
which requires a seven-day delay between the date of this Order
and transfer, is waived.
SO ORDERED.
_____/s Eric Komitee_________ ERIC KOMITEE United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York June 12, 2020
10