Diaz Baez et al. v. Aviles-Ramos et al.

HAA | Seema Sie THE CITY OF NEW YORK GOODE-TRUFANT LAW DEPARTMENT David Kaplan Counsel 100 CHURCH STREET Phone: (212) 356-1175 NEW YORK, NY 10007 [email protected] BY ECF Hon. Sarah L. Cave United States Magistrate Judge November 25, 2025 Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court House Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Diaz Baez et al. v. Aviles-Ramos et al.

25-CV-04029 (MMG)(SLC) Dear Judge Cave: I am the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to represent the Defendants in the above matter. I write jointly with Plaintiffs’ counsel, Nicole Lancia, Esq., to provide the Court with the Parties’ positions regarding the Initial Pre-Trial Conference (IPTC) and a proposed briefing schedule.

Given that this matter is an appeal of an administrative decision from the Office of State Review centered on whether the State Review Officer correctly denied re1mbursement for tuition, transportation, and nursing services for the Student L.G.’s 2023-2024 school year unilateral placement at iBrain, as well as a dispute about an administrative Pendency Order, the Parties agree that an IPTC and/or mediation would be unnecessary. The Parties believe this matter can be resolved through motions for summary judgment based upon the certified record. The Plaintiffs have requested a copy of the certified administrative record from the Office of State Review and are waiting for receipt of the same.

The Parties expect receipt of the record within 4-6 weeks and jointly propose that upon receipt, the certified record be filed under seal, with a courtesy copy to be provided to Defendants.

Given the typical processing time of the Office of State Review, the Parties anticipate receiving a copy of the certified record by December 30, 2025.

The Parties disagree on whether the SRO’s denial of reimbursement for L.G.’s tuition, transportation, and nursing services was appropriate, and about the effect of an administrative Pendency Order. The Parties, therefore, do not believe the IPTC or mediation would be helpful or beneficial in resolving the Plaintiffs’ claims. The Parties propose the following briefing schedule in anticipation of receipt of the certified record on or around December 30, 2025: January 29, 2026: Plaintiffs to file therr Motion for Summary Judgment; March 1, 2026: Defendants to file their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; March 23, 2026: Plaintiffs to file their Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply; April 13, 2026: Defendants to file their Reply.

Please also find attached hereto the Parties’ Joint Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Kindly note that the Parties agree that no formal discovery is required beyond filing the certified administrative record.

Moreover, it is also respectfully submitted that because the inquiry here is not whether there are disputed issues of fact, the Rule 56.1 statements should be waived. While in IDEA actions, “the parties and the court typically style the decision as a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, [] ‘the procedure is in substance an appeal from an administrative determination, not a summary judgment motion.’” Bd. Of Educ. v. C.S., 990 F.3d 156,165 (2d Cir. 2021) (quoting M_H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 226 (2d Cir. 2012). Because the Parties’ motions will be based solely on the administrative record, the Parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court waive the submission of 56.1 statements.

Further, the Parties respectfully request that the conference scheduled for December 2, 2025, be adjourned sine die.

The Parties thank the Court for its consideration in this matter.

Respectfully, David Kaplan Assistant Corporation Counsel New York City Law Department Church Street New York, NY 10007 The parties’ request at Dkt. No. 26 is GRANTED and th Initial Case Management Conference scheduled on . . December 2, 2025 is ADJOURNED sine die. The Ce: Nicole Lancia, Esq. . . judgment motion briefing schedule proposed herein is Liberty & Freedom Legal Group □ □□ East 34th Street. #190 ADOPTED. The Court will endorse the parties’ case New York. NY 10016 management plan by separate order.

Via ECF The Clerk of the Court is resepctfully directed to close L No. 26.

COQ ORNEREN 14/98/95 my.