Dr. John B. King, Jr., Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Defendant Malverne Union Free School District, Defendant New York State Education Department, Defendant State of New York, Defendant N.J. (m), Plaintiff
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The District is enjoined from disenrolling N.J.(m) and A.J. from their respective schools with the District until a decision has been rendered on their section 310 appeal to the NYSED. The District shall arrange for transportation for N.J.(m) and A.J. to their respective schools within the District consistent with the District's obligations under the McKinney-Vento Act and New York Education Law, Section 3209. The parties are afforded until Friday, December 16, 2011, to file a brief not to exceed 10 pages in length addressing this Court's finding that the proper inquiry for showing a likelihood of success on the merits was not the Plaintiffs' homelessness, but rather the Plaintiffs' likelihood of showing the state regulation permitting the Commissioner to deny a stay of disenrollment during the pendency of a section 310 appeal is in conflict with the Pendency Provision of the McKinney-Vento Act. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 12/13/2011. C/M by ECF. (Mahon, Cinthia)
er jurisdiction, and the applicability of the res judicata doctrine until after they have been fully briefed by the parties. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/9/2012. (Florio, Lisa) ORDER: SO ORDERED that the Court notes that in addition to addressing the specific question posed by the Court, both the State Defts and the District argued that the Court should reverse its ruling because: (I) the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' federal claims and (2) the doctrine of res judicata bars the Plaintiffs claims based on the consent order entered into in National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty v. State of New York, No. 04-CV -705 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2006) (Spatt, J.). These issues were first raised in the State Defts' motion to dismiss filed on December 9, 2011, the day of the hearing. The Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to respond to either objection at the hearing. Furthermore, on December 27, 2011, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the Plaintiffs time to respond to the motion to dismiss until January 9, 2012. In light of the complexity of these issues, the Court will reserve decision on its subject-matt
Loading...
Document Citations
Citations are generated automatically from bibliographic data
as a convenience and may not be complete or accurate.
Chicago
N.J. (m) v. State of New York et al, (E.D.N.Y. 2012). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05935.
APA
United States District Court Eastern District of New York. (2012, January 9). 11-5935 - N.J. (m) v. State of New York et al. [Government]. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05935
MLA
United States District Court Eastern District of New York. 11-5935 - N.J. (m) v. State of New York et al. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, (9 Jan 2012), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05935
Bluebook
N.J. (m) v. State of New York et al, (E.D.N.Y. 2012), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-nyed-2_11-cv-05935
