United States District Court, N.D. New York
KELLY GRAVEN and ELIZABETH BRIGGS on behalf of DGB, an infant, Plaintiffs,
GREENE CENT. SCH. DIST., Defendant.
LAW OFFICE OF RONALD R. BENJAMIN, RONALD R. BENJAMIN, ESQ., Binghamton, NY, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
HOGAN SARZYNSKI, WENDY K. DeWIND, ESQ., Binghamton, NY, Counsel for Defendant.
DECISION and ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.
Currently before the Court, in this action filed by Kelly Graven and Elizabeth Briggs on behalf of the infant DGB ("Plaintiffs") against the Greene Central School District ("Defendant") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(7). (Dkt. No. 16.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiffs' Complaint
Because the parties have (in their memoranda of law) demonstrated an adequate understanding of the allegations and claim asserted in Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Court will not repeat that information in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for the review of the parties. Rather, the Court will state merely that, as relief for their IDEA claim, Plaintiffs seek an Order directing Defendant to cooperate in placing their son, DGB, in a residential treatment facility ("RTF") that has expertise in treating his Reactive Attachment Disorder ("RAD"), and assuming financially responsibility for the cost of that placement, due to its obligation to provide DGB with a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") under the IDEA. (Dkt. No. 1.)
B. Parties' Arguments on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
1. Defendant's Memorandum of Law
Generally, in its memorandum of law, Defendant asserts three arguments. (Dkt. No. 16, Attach. 5 [Def.'s Memo. of Law].)
First, argues Defendant, Plaintiffs's Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), because they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before filing this action, given that an administrative appeal was filed from the decision of the Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO") to the New York State Education Department Office of State Review ("SRO") but no decision has yet been received regarding that appeal. ( Id. )
Second, argues Defendant, in any event, Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed for failure to join all parties necessary to permit complete relief and to prevent multiple and inconsistent obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(8) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 9, because (a) DGB is currently in the care of the New York State Office of Mental Health (which may make a decision that is contrary to this Court's decision), (b) the Chenango County Department of Social Services is actively investigating an abuse-and-neglect complaint pursuant to Article 10 of the New York State Family Court Act and could make their own placement recommendation (which may be contrary to this Court's decision), and (c) the Afton Central School District, as the district of residence of DGB's parents, is currently responsible for making the 2014-2015 special education placement (which may be contrary to this Court's decision). ( Id. )
Third, argues Defendant, in any event, Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), because DGB was discharged from Stillwater effective July 11, 2014 (pursuant to the Memorandum and Order of New York State Supreme Court Justice Kevin M. Dowd) and thus Defendant no longer bears an obligation to place DGB (given that he is currently not ...