Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

J.S. et al v. Attica Central Schools

December 9, 2011

J.S. ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
ATTICA CENTRAL SCHOOLS, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Pending before this Court is Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this Court's Decision and Order (Docket No. 210) denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting, in part, Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Docket Nos. 189, 194.) Defendant has filed a response to Plaintiffs' motion, to which Plaintiffs have responded. (Docket Nos. 213-215.) Following the parties' briefing on the motion to reconsider, Defendant filed a motion to strike the Plaintiffs' reply submissions.*fn1 (Docket No. 216.)

II. BACKGROUND

By Decision and Order dated September 25, 2011, this Court decided six pending motions in this case. Defendant's two motions to dismiss parties (Docket Nos. 193, 208), Defendant's motion in limine to preclude evidence (Docket No. 125), and Defendant's motion to decertify the class (Docket No. 160) were denied by this Court and are not the subject of Plaintiffs' current motion for reargument/reconsideration (Docket No. 213).

This Court also considered Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 189) and Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Docket No. 194) and ruled in favor of Defendant Attica Central Schools (also referred to herein as "the District") on the majority of Plaintiffs' 41 claims or "Contentions."

Plaintiffs' 41 Contentions stem from five causes of action listed in their complaint. Due to the vague and repetitive nature of the complaint,*fn2 this Court distilled the issues to two causes of action, one alleging Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") deprivations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") and the other alleging discrimination under Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act relating to the accessibility of the District's facilities. (Dec. and Order dated 9/25/2011 (Docket No. 210) at 6-7.) Plaintiffs have stated in their motion papers that they do not seek reconsideration of the Court's decision in favor of the District with respect to the Section 504 non-discrimination cause of action (Pl. Mem. (Docket No. 213-5) at 5, n.5). Accordingly, only the first cause of action is the subject of Plaintiffs' present motion.

Specifically, Plaintiffs disagree with this Court's determination to grant summary judgment to the District on the basis that a number of Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot by the District's remedial efforts to place their special education programs in compliance with the IDEA. Plaintiffs had sought only declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to violations occurring during the 2006-2007 school year.

This Court has deemed Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration submitted on papers pursuant to Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion is denied.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Reconsideration Generally

A motion for reconsideration may be granted based on one of three possible grounds: (1) an intervening change in law, (2) the availability of evidence not previously available, and (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. In re C-TC 9th Ave. P'ship, 182 B.R. 1, 3 (N.D.N.Y. 1995); Virgin Airways v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992) ("A movant for reconsideration bears the heavy burden of demonstrating that there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence has become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice"); Doe v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983). "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted when the moving party seeks solely to relitigate an issue already decided." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Metro. Opera Ass'n, Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Int'l Union, No. 00-CV-3613, 2004 WL 1943099 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2004) ("a motion for reconsideration does not mean the parties get a 'do over.'").

As Defendant has correctly argued, Plaintiffs have failed to establish any of the recognized bases for reconsideration of this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.