Case: A.R. v. Connecticut State Board of Education

3:16-cv-01197 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut

Filed Date: July 15, 2016

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Under state law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76d(b), Connecticut was required to provide education to individuals with disabilities only until they attained a high school diploma or turned 21, whichever occurred first. No comparable Connecticut law or regulation imposed a maximum age limit for entitlement to public education for non-special education students. In this case, the named plaintiff – a 22-year-old with a developmental disability, acting through his mother – filed a class action suit on be…

Under state law, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-76d(b), Connecticut was required to provide education to individuals with disabilities only until they attained a high school diploma or turned 21, whichever occurred first. No comparable Connecticut law or regulation imposed a maximum age limit for entitlement to public education for non-special education students. In this case, the named plaintiff – a 22-year-old with a developmental disability, acting through his mother – filed a class action suit on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals challenging the age limit. Represented by private counsel and the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, an independent state agency that investigates claims of discrimination and abuse and provides advocacy services. Plaintiff alleged that the state statute violated the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), which mandates the provision of a “free and appropriate public education” to children with disabilities from the age of three until they turn 22 (rather than 21, as under the state law). Filing suit against the Connecticut State Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on July 15, 2016, plaintiff sought an injunction preventing the Board of Education from ending education services to 21 year olds and compensatory damages to the class of individuals unlawfully denied services (estimated by plaintiffs to be in the “hundred or thousands”). The case was assigned to Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr.

On September 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion, followed shortly by a motion for summary judgment on September 14, 2017. Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on November 8, 2017. In its response to plaintiffs’ class certification and summary judgment motion motions, the state argued that the named plaintiff lacked standing. An affidavit authored by his mother and attached to their motion for summary judgment claimed that plaintiff earned a diploma from a local public high school “in or about 2013,” which defendant argued mooted plaintiffs’ standing under the Connecticut statute and IDEA. Plaintiff’s mother submitted another affidavit explaining that she had refused the diploma from the high school on her son’s behalf precisely because of the consequences it would have for his access to support and education. Finding the mother’s explanation insufficient, Judge Haight issued a memorandum on March 23, 2018 ordering that an evidentiary hearing be conducted to determine whether the diploma in question was a regular high school diploma or a document along the lines of a certificate based on his progress on his Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals or objectives.   

Before an evidentiary hearing could be held, plaintiff’s lawyers informed the court on May 29, 2018 during a conference call that they intended to replace the original named plaintiff with a different individual and file an amended complaint. On July 20, 2018, Judge Haight denied the class certification motion and cross-motions for summary judgment as moot without prejudice to refiling if the standing issue was resolved in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend/correct the complaint on August 17, 2018. In an April 5, 2019 order, the court found that the original named plaintiff did have standing when he filed suit because his public education was terminated due to his age and not his potential attainment of a high school diploma. In any event, however, the court granted the amended complaint substituting a new plaintiff. The court reasoned that from the point at which a class action is filed until a final determination is made, the action is treated as if the class existed for the purposes of mootness and therefore adding a new representative is appropriate to protect the interests of the proposed class. 2019 WL 1499377.

The new named plaintiff was then 19-years old; she would turn 21 on April 7, 2020. As a result, the complaint alleged she would be denied an education during the school that ended on June 30, 2020 and be three credits short of obtaining a high school diploma. On May 10, 2019, plaintiff refiled motions for class certification and summary judgment, arguing that the “public education” that defendant was required to provide under the IDEA included adult education programs not necessarily administered in Connecticut public schools. Plaintiff identified three specific adult education programs that allow participants to obtain a high school diploma: the General Educational Development Program (“GED”), the National External Diploma Program (“NEDP”), and the Adult High School Credit Diploma Program (“AHSCD”).

The court granted class status on May 1, 2020, holding that the proposed class of individuals with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22 harmed by the Connecticut statute satisfied the standard class requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The court had no issue with the class seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, however, plaintiffs’s claim for compensatory education presented a more complex issue because the relief needed to remedy defendant’s denial of services would likely differ depending on each class member’s individual circumstances. The court’s solution was to certify a separate class for compensatory education claims and allow the class to pursue remedies on two tracks. 2020 WL 2092650.

On June 10, 2020, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, holding that defendant’s denial of public education to individuals with disabilities between the ages of 21 and 22 constituted a gross violation of the IDEA. 2020 WL 3086032. Lacking a specific definition in the IDEA and binding precedent in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court’s evaluation of what constitutes “public education” was guided by decisions in the Ninth and First Circuits. The court held that “public education” in the context of the IDEA should be defined as one that is provided: (1) at public expense through significant state or local government funding; (2) under the administration, supervision, or oversight of state education agencies; and (3) with the objective of educating students up to the level of academic proficiency associated with the completion of secondary school. In addition to the declaratory judgment, the court ordered that defendant was enjoined from terminating a public education for named plaintiff and class members before they reach the age of 22; a permanent injunction to the same effect was ordered July 10, 2020. The court also awarded compensatory education to class members. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel to work with the parties on issues including identifying and giving notice to potential class members; considering the state’s ability to provide compensatory education to class members; and identifying service providers who would likely be needed to provide compensatory education to class members. 

Defendant filed an application for a stay of the injunction that was denied on July 10, 2020; the state filed an appeal that same day. On July 8, 2021 in an opinion authored by Judge Kearse, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, including the award of compensatory education. Defendant’s appeal on the merits of the case (as opposed to the issue of plaintiff’s standing) focused on what constitutes public education, arguing that public education in Connecticut constituted solely public school education and did not include adult public education programs. The Second Circuit held that the district court’s approach to defining “public education” was appropriate. Defendant’s argument about Connecticut’s particular definition was meritless because “public education” is an undefined statutory term. Therefore the term had to be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary common sense meaning in the context of the federal statutory scheme, not the scheme suggested by a particular state. 5 F.4th 155.

Following the Second Circuit’s decision, the district court granted plaintiff’s motion for $103,872.50 in attorneys’ fees and $9,613.32 in litigation costs on December 2, 2021. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs had originally been filed on July 24, 2020 but the court granted a stay while the appeal was being heard by the Second Circuit. Disputes between the parties on attorneys’ fees continued.

This case is ongoing to resolve attorneys fees; it is unclear whether the court expects to retain jurisdiction to enforce the permanent injunction.

Summary Authors

Hannah Juge (7/13/2022)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

3:16-cv-01197

Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

D.J. v. Connecticut State Board of Education

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

Complaint
41

3:16-cv-01197

Order Evaluating Original Plaintiff's Standing

March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Order/Opinion
63

3:16-cv-01197

Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct

2019 WL 1499377

April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

Order/Opinion
64

3:16-cv-01197

Amended Complaint

April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

Complaint
70

3:16-cv-01197

Order on Motion to Certify Class

2020 WL 2092650

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

Order/Opinion
71

3:16-cv-01197

Ruling on the Parties' Cross Motions For Summary Judgment

2020 WL 3086032

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Order/Opinion
81

3:16-cv-01197

Permanent Injunction Judgment and Order

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

Order/Opinion
95

20-02255

3:16-cv-01197

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

5 F.4th 155

July 8, 2021

July 8, 2021

Order/Opinion
96

3:16-cv-01197

Order RE: Plaintiff's Motion for An Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Dec. 2, 2021

Dec. 2, 2021

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6127118/r-v-connecticut-state-board-of-education/

Last updated Aug. 27, 2022, 3:25 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT D.J., through his parent O.W. on behalf of a class of those similarly situated against Connecticut State Board of Education ( Filing fee $400 receipt number 0205-4069976.), filed by O. W.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Alisberg, Nancy) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

Clearinghouse

Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr added. (Oliver, T.)

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

PACER
2

Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Discovery due by 1/14/2017 Signed by Clerk on 7/15/2016.(Nuzzi, T) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

PACER
3

ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 7/15/2016.(Nuzzi, T) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

PACER
4

NOTICE TO COUNSEL/PRO SE PARTIES : Counsel or pro se parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 3 Electronic Filing Order, 2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, 1 Complaint, Signed by Clerk on 7/15/2016.(Nuzzi, T) (Entered: 07/15/2016)

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

PACER
5

NOTICE of Appearance by Sonja Deyoe on behalf of D. J. (Deyoe, Sonja) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

July 18, 2016

July 18, 2016

PACER

Request for Clerk to issue summons as to D. J.. (Deyoe, Sonja)

July 18, 2016

July 18, 2016

PACER
6

MOTION for Attorney(s) Jason H. Kim to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205-4072659) by D. J.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration in Support of Motion to Admit)(Alisberg, Nancy) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

July 19, 2016

July 19, 2016

PACER
7

ORDER granting 6 Motion for Jason S. Kim to Appear Pro Hac Vice Certificate of Good Standing due by 9/17/2016. Signed by Clerk on 7/19/2016. (LaMura, K.) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

July 19, 2016

July 19, 2016

PACER
8

ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Connecticut State Board of Education* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Law Office of Sonja L. Deyoe* *395 Smith Street* *Providence RI 02908*. (LaMura, K.) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

July 19, 2016

July 19, 2016

PACER
9

CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Jason H. Kim to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205-4072659) by D. J.. (Kim, Jason) (Entered: 07/25/2016)

July 25, 2016

July 25, 2016

PACER
10

SUMMONS Returned Executed by D. J.. Connecticut State Board of Education served on 8/29/2016, answer due 9/19/2016. (Deyoe, Sonja) (Entered: 09/07/2016)

Sept. 7, 2016

Sept. 7, 2016

PACER
11

NOTICE of Appearance by Darren P. Cunningham on behalf of Connecticut State Board of Education (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

PACER
12

MOTION for Extension of Time until November 18, 2016 Respond to the Complaint 1 Complaint, by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

PACER
13

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendant's unopposed 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint for good cause shown. Accordingly, Defendant must respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or before November 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on September 16, 2016. (Kahl, A) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

PACER
14

NOTICE of Appearance by Ralph E. Urban on behalf of Connecticut State Board of Education in addition to the appearance of Darren P. Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General (Urban, Ralph) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

PACER

Answer deadline updated for Connecticut State Board of Education to 11/18/2016. (Gould, K.)

Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

PACER
15

MOTION for Extension of Time until October 28to File Rule 26(f) Report by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 10/25/2016)

Oct. 25, 2016

Oct. 25, 2016

RECAP
16

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting nunc pro tunc Defendant's unopposed 15 Motion for Extension of Time for good cause shown. Accordingly, the parties must file a Rule 26(f) Report on or before October 28, 2016. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on October 26, 2016. (Kahl, A) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

Oct. 26, 2016

Oct. 26, 2016

PACER

Set Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 10/28/2016 (LaMura, K.)

Oct. 27, 2016

Oct. 27, 2016

PACER
17

REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Deyoe, Sonja) (Entered: 10/28/2016)

Oct. 28, 2016

Oct. 28, 2016

PACER
18

ELECTRONIC SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court has reviewed [Doc. 17] the Rule 26(f) Report of Parties' Planning Meeting, which is hereby APPROVED AS MODIFIED. Defendant has requested that the Court not issue a scheduling order and stay all discovery pending resolution of a motion to dismiss Defendant intends to file. The Court declines to do so at this point without such a motion pending. The parties may later file a motion requesting a stay of discovery and the deadlines in this Scheduling Order. The following deadlines, adopted from the parties' Rule 26(f) Report with a few modifications, are set for this action. Plaintiff must file to join any additional parties on or before December 30, 2016 and amend the pleadings on or before December 30, 2016 or twenty-one (21) days after this Court rules on any motion to dismiss filed. Defendant must file to join any additional parties on or before January 31, 2017 and must respond to Plaintiff's complaint on or before November 14, 2016. All discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses and fact witnesses, will be completed on or before June 30, 2017. Any dispositive motions will be filed on or before July 31, 2017. The joint trial memorandum will be filed on or before August 31, 2017 or within thirty (30) days after the Court issues its last ruling on a dispositive motion, whichever is later. The case will be trial ready on or before October 2, 2017 or within thirty (30) days after the filing of the joint trial memorandum, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on November 2, 2016. (Kahl, A) (Entered: 11/02/2016)

Nov. 2, 2016

Nov. 2, 2016

PACER

Set Deadlines: Discovery due by 6/30/2017 Dispositive Motions due by 7/31/2017 Trial Brief due by 8/31/2017 Trial Ready Date 10/2/2017 (LaMura, K.)

Nov. 3, 2016

Nov. 3, 2016

PACER
19

Second MOTION for Extension of Time until January 13, 2017 To Respond to the Complaint 13 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, Update Answer Deadline, 1 Complaint, by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 11/14/2016)

Nov. 14, 2016

Nov. 14, 2016

PACER
20

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendant's unopposed 19 Second Motion for Extension of Time for good cause shown. Accordingly, Defendant must respond to Plaintiffs' complaint on or before January 13, 2017. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on November 15, 2016. (Kahl, A) (Entered: 11/15/2016)

Nov. 15, 2016

Nov. 15, 2016

PACER

Answer deadline updated for Connecticut State Board of Education to 1/13/2017. (LaMura, K.)

Nov. 16, 2016

Nov. 16, 2016

PACER
21

Third MOTION for Extension of Time until February 14, 2017 to Respond to Complaint Update Answer Deadline, 1 Complaint, 20 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 12/29/2016)

Dec. 29, 2016

Dec. 29, 2016

PACER
22

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendant's 21 Third Motion for Extension of Time for good cause shown. Accordingly, Defendant must respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or before February 14, 2017. Plaintiffs do not consent. This extension is peremptory. No further applications for extensions will be entertained. Defendant is receiving this final extension in order to continue settlement negotiations among a number of state entities. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on January 10, 2017. (Kahl, A) (Entered: 01/10/2017)

Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

PACER

Answer deadline updated for Connecticut State Board of Education to 2/14/2017. (LaMura, K.)

Jan. 11, 2017

Jan. 11, 2017

PACER
23

ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Affirmative Defenses by Connecticut State Board of Education.(Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 02/14/2017)

Feb. 14, 2017

Feb. 14, 2017

PACER
24

MOTION for Extension of Time until August 14, 2017 for the Discovery Deadline; and to September 14, 2017 for the Dispositive Motion Deadline by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 06/05/2017)

June 5, 2017

June 5, 2017

PACER
25

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendant's unopposed 24 Motion for Extension of Time for good cause shown. Accordingly, the ELECTRONIC SCHEDULING ORDER is amended as follows. All discovery, including depositions of expert witnesses and fact witnesses, will be complete on or before August 14, 2017. Any dispositive motions will be filed on or before September 14, 2017. The joint trial memorandum will be filed on or before October 16, 2017 or within thirty (30) days after the Court issues its last ruling on a dispositive motion, whichever is later. The case will be trial ready on or before November 16, 2017 or within thirty (30) days after the filing of the joint trial memorandum, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on June 8, 2017. (Kahl, A) (Entered: 06/08/2017)

June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 8/14/2017 Dispositive Motions due by 9/14/2017 Trial Brief due by 10/16/2017 Trial Ready Date 11/16/2017 (Villano, P.)

June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

PACER
26

Joint MOTION for Extension of Time Pertaining to Summary Judgment Motions 25 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,,, by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 08/22/2017)

Aug. 22, 2017

Aug. 22, 2017

PACER
27

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting, for good cause shown, Parties' 26 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Accordingly, the scheduling order is amended as follows: Plaintiffs must file any dispositive motion on or before Thursday, September 14, 2017. Defendant must file any opposition to Plaintiff's motion, and any dispositive motion of its own, on or before November 8, 2017. Plaintiffs must file any opposition and reply memorandum to Defendant's dispositve motion on or before November 22, 2017. Defendants must file any sur-reply on or before December 13, 2017. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on August 24, 2017. (Pskowski, R.) (Entered: 08/24/2017)

Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 2017

PACER

Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 12/13/2017 (Freberg, B)

Aug. 24, 2017

Aug. 24, 2017

PACER
28

MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) by D. J..Responses due by 9/22/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Jason H. Kim, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E)(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 09/01/2017)

Sept. 1, 2017

Sept. 1, 2017

PACER
29

MOTION for Summary Judgment by D. J..Responses due by 10/5/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Affidavit Jason H. Kim, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Affidavit O.W.)(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 09/14/2017)

Sept. 14, 2017

Sept. 14, 2017

PACER
30

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 28 MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) until October 2, 2017 by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

PACER
32

Reset Deadlines as to 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Responses due by 11/8/2017 (Freberg, B) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

Sept. 15, 2017

Sept. 15, 2017

PACER
31

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting, absent objection and for good cause shown, Defendant's 30 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, Defendant must file its response to Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(b)(2) on or before October 2, 2017, and Plaintiff may, if so advised, file a reply to Defendant's response on or before October 16, 2017. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 9/18/2017. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 09/18/2017)

Sept. 18, 2017

Sept. 18, 2017

PACER
33

OBJECTION re 28 MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) filed by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 10/02/2017)

Oct. 2, 2017

Oct. 2, 2017

PACER
34

First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 28 MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) until 10/20/2017 by D. J.. (Kim, Jason) (Entered: 10/10/2017)

Oct. 10, 2017

Oct. 10, 2017

PACER
35

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting, absent objection and for good cause shown, Plaintiff's 34 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Class Certification. Accordingly, Plaintiff may, if so advised, file a reply to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23(b)(2) on or before 10/20/2017. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 10/11/2017. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

PACER
36

Set Reply Deadline as to 28 MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2). Replies due by 10/20/2017 (Freberg, B) (Entered: 10/13/2017)

Oct. 11, 2017

Oct. 11, 2017

PACER
37

REPLY to Response to 28 MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) filed by D. J.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Jason H. Kim (Second), # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Affidavit OW (Redacted))(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 10/20/2017)

Oct. 20, 2017

Oct. 20, 2017

PACER
38

MOTION for Summary Judgment by Connecticut State Board of Education.Responses due by 11/29/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Statement of Material Facts in Opposition to Summary Judgment)(Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 11/08/2017)

Nov. 8, 2017

Nov. 8, 2017

PACER
39

Memorandum in Opposition and Reply re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by D. J.. (Kim, Jason) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

Nov. 22, 2017

Nov. 22, 2017

PACER
40

Memorandum in Opposition and Reply re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 12/13/2017)

Dec. 13, 2017

Dec. 13, 2017

PACER
41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING STANDING (see attached). An evidentiary hearing consistent with the attached Memorandum and Order will take place on April 23, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. A separate calendar will issue. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 3/23/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

Clearinghouse
42

NOTICE OF HEARING. Consistent with the Court's 41 Memorandum and Order Regarding Standing, an evidentiary hearing will be held on April 23, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., in the Courtroom on the 17th Floor of the Connecticut Financial Center, 157 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut, before Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 03/23/2018)

March 23, 2018

March 23, 2018

PACER
43

Joint MOTION to Continue by D. J.. (Alisberg, Nancy) (Entered: 04/06/2018)

April 6, 2018

April 6, 2018

PACER
44

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting the parties' 43 Joint Motion for a Continuance and Plaintiff's Motion for Pre-Hearing Discovery. The Evidentiary Hearing scheduled for April 23, 2018, will be continued to a date to be determined. In answer to the parties' request for a telephonic conference, the parties shall jointly dial chambers on Thursday, April 19, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. A separate calendar will issue. Plaintiff's request for leave to conduct a deposition of an official from the Hartford Public Schools is hereby granted. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 4/9/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

April 9, 2018

April 9, 2018

PACER
45

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. A Telephonic Scheduling Conference is set for April 19, 2018, at 2:00 PM before Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. Counsel shall initiate the conference by phoning Chambers, with all attending counsel on the line, at (203) 773-2052. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 04/09/2018)

April 9, 2018

April 9, 2018

PACER
46

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr.: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/19/2018. Total Time: 35 minutes. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

PACER
47

MEMORANDUM and ORDER (see attached). Consistent with the discussions held during the April 19, 2018, telephonic conference, the case will be called for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Plaintiff's standing on Tuesday, June 5, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. A separate calendar will issue. The parties are directed to file letters to the Court by 12:00 p.m. on June 1, 2018, consistent with the attached Order. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 4/19/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

PACER
48

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. A Telephonic Status Conference is set for May 29, 2018 at 2:00 PM before Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. Counsel shall initiate the conference by phoning Chambers, with all attending counsel on the line, at (203) 773-2052. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

PACER
49

NOTICE OF HEARING. RESET FROM April 23, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. Consistent with the Court's 41 Memorandum and Order Regarding Standing, and with the discussions held during the April 19, 2018, telephonic conference, see Doc. 47, an evidentiary hearing and oral argument will be held on June 5, 2018, at 10:00 AM in the Courtroom on the 17th Floor of the Connecticut Financial Center, 157 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut, before Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 04/19/2018)

April 19, 2018

April 19, 2018

PACER
50

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr.: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/29/2018. Total Time: 25 minutes. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

May 29, 2018

May 29, 2018

PACER
51

ELECTRONIC MEMORANDUM and ORDER. On May 29, 2018, this Court conducted a telephonic status conference with counsel for both parties. During the conference, counsel for the plaintiff indicated that, in an effort to resolve the standing issue raised by this Court sua sponte, they intend to seek to substitute the current plaintiff with a different individual, and will also seek to file an amended complaint. The Court expresses no view on that position, except to note that if the present plaintiff lacks Article III standing, "a plaintiff cannot remedy that constitutional defect via Rule 17 substitution." Kinra v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., No. 17-CV-4251(LGS), 2018 WL 2371030, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2018) (citing and quoting Cortlandt St. Recovery Corp. v. Hellas Telecommunications, S.A.R.L., 790 F.3d 411, 423 (2d Cir. 2015)). In any event, the need for the evidentiary hearing, currently scheduled for June 5, 2018, has been obviated. Accordingly, the Court hereby cancels the June 5, 2018, evidentiary hearing. Consistent with the discussions held during the May 29, 2018, telephonic conference, on or before June 15, 2018, the parties are directed to file letters to the Court, briefly summarizing the status of the case. The parties' letters should indicate their respective positions on the proposal discussed by counsel for plaintiff during the May 29, 2018, conference. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 5/29/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 05/29/2018)

May 29, 2018

May 29, 2018

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 6/15/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.)

May 29, 2018

May 29, 2018

PACER
52

Joint STATUS REPORT by D. J.. (Kim, Jason) (Entered: 06/15/2018)

June 15, 2018

June 15, 2018

PACER
53

NOTICE of Appearance by Catherine E. Cushman on behalf of D. J. (Cushman, Catherine) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

June 26, 2018

June 26, 2018

PACER
54

First MOTION for Nancy B. Alisberg to Withdraw as Attorney by D. J.. (Alisberg, Nancy) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

PACER
55

ELECRONIC ORDER granting Attorney Nancy B. Alisberg's 54 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Plaintiff continues to be represented by Attorneys Jason H. Kim, Catherine E. Cushman, and Sonja Deyoe. Thus, in accordance with Local Rule 7(e), Attorney Nancy B. Alisberg's appearance is terminated. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 6/27/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

June 27, 2018

June 27, 2018

PACER
56

ELECTRONIC ORDER. On March 23, 2018, this Court entered a Memorandum and Order that raised the question of Plaintiff D.J.'s standing to bring this case. Doc. 41 . The Court noted that if Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear his claims. Finding that resolution of the issue required the development of a more complete factual record, and further submissions of counsel, the Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 23, 2018. Doc. 42. The parties' motion to continue that hearing and for leave to conduct certain pre-hearing discovery was thereafter granted. Doc. 44. During a telephonic status conference on May 29, 2018, counsel for Plaintiff stated that he would seek to substitute a new plaintiff to address the Court's concerns about Plaintiff D.J.'s standing. In light of this representation, the parties agreed that the need for the scheduled evidentiary hearing was obviated. Doc. 51. In a subsequent joint status report, dated June 15, 2018, counsel for Plaintiff stated that he intends to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, with a "new proposed plaintiff, A.R.," noting that counsel for Defendant has voiced opposition to this plan. Doc. 52 . To date, no such motion has been filed. Under the foregoing circumstances, Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2); Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to FRCP 56; and Defendant's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment are hereby DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to refiling, if the question of standing is ultimately resolved in Plaintiff's favor. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 7/20/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

July 20, 2018

July 20, 2018

PACER
57

MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by D. J..Responses due by 9/7/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Jason H. Kim, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Affidavit Scott Wells)(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 08/17/2018)

Aug. 17, 2018

Aug. 17, 2018

PACER
58

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until September 28, 2018 to respond to 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

PACER
59

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting Defendant's 58 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, absent objection, and for good cause shown. Accordingly, Defendant's response to Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint must be filed on or before September 28, 2018. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on 8/29/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

PACER
60

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 57 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. Responses due by 9/28/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.) (Entered: 08/29/2018)

Aug. 29, 2018

Aug. 29, 2018

PACER
61

Memorandum in Opposition re 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, filed by Connecticut State Board of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 09/28/2018)

Sept. 28, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018

PACER
62

REPLY to Response to 57 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, filed by D. J.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Jason H. Kim (Second), # 2 Exhibit E)(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

Oct. 12, 2018

Oct. 12, 2018

PACER
63

RULING (see attached) granting Plaintiff's 57 Motion to Amend. Accordingly, the previously filed Amended Complaint [Doc. 57-4] becomes the operative complaint in this action. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 5, 2019. (Ghosh, R.) (Entered: 04/05/2019)

April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

Clearinghouse
64

AMENDED COMPLAINT against Connecticut State Board of Education, filed by A. R..(Reis, Julia) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

Clearinghouse
65

STIPULATION re 56 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Certify Class,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by A. R.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

May 10, 2019

May 10, 2019

PACER
66

Second MOTION to Certify Class by A. R..Responses due by 6/21/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Jason H. Kim, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Affidavit A.R.)(Kim, Jason) (Entered: 05/31/2019)

May 31, 2019

May 31, 2019

PACER
67

EXHIBIT Declaration of A.R. by A. R. re 66 Second MOTION to Certify Class . (Considine, Kasey) (Entered: 11/27/2019)

Nov. 27, 2019

Nov. 27, 2019

PACER
68

MOTION to Seal Plaintiff A.R.'s Declarations by A. R.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Cushman, Catherine) (Entered: 12/09/2019)

Dec. 9, 2019

Dec. 9, 2019

PACER
69

ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 68 Motion to Seal Plaintiff A.R.'s Declarations. Pursuant to Local Rule 5(e), any order sealing a judicial document "shall include particularized findings demonstrating that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve those reasons." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 5(e)(3); see Kleftogiannis v. Inline Plastics Corp., 2019 WL 4244810, at *11 (D. Conn. Sept. 6, 2019) (noting that the party moving to seal must demonstrate "that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."). Courts "routinely... redact or otherwise restrict access to sensitive personally identifying information contained in court documents" where there is "substantial privacy interest" in Plaintiff's anonymity. See id.; B. v. City of New York, 2016 WL 4530455, at *5 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2016) (ordering sealing of the documents that disclosed the full name of a minor plaintiff proceeding under a pseudonym). In the instant case, Plaintiff A.R., a student with disabilities, has been proceeding under a pseudonym in order to prevent disclosure of specific information concerning Plaintiff's disabilities and to protect Plaintiff's privacy. Plaintiff's counsel represents that the disclosure of Plaintiff's full name and home address in the declarations that Plaintiff filed on May 31, 2019 (Exhibit 8 to Doc. 66 ) and November 27, 2019 (Doc. 67 ) was inadvertent and asks the Court to "retract the original versions of the declarations and substitute redacted versions in their place." See Doc. 68, at 1. Defendant does not object to Plaintiff's request. See id., at 2. Accordingly, the court finds that redacting Plaintiff's full name and home address is narrowly tailored to protect Plaintiff's privacy and preserve Plaintiff's anonymity in this matter. See B. v. City of New York, 2016 WL 4530455, at *5 n.6; Travelers Indem. Co. v. Excalibur Reinsurance Corp., No. 11-cv-1209 (CSH), 2013 WL 4012772, at *17 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2013). The Clerk is directed to place Exhibit 8 to Doc. 66 May 31, 2019 Affidavit of A.R. and Doc. 67 November 27, 2019 Declaration of A.R. under seal and file redacted versions of these documents (Exhibits 1 and 2 to Doc. 68 ) in their place. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on January 3, 2020. (Marienko, A.) (Entered: 01/03/2020)

Jan. 3, 2020

Jan. 3, 2020

PACER

Order on Motion to Seal

Jan. 3, 2020

Jan. 3, 2020

PACER
70

RULING (see attached) granting Plaintiff's 66 Second Motion to Certify Class. For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, Plaintiffs' claims for class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief are certified under Rule 23(b)(2), and Plaintiffs' claims for compensatory education are certified under Rule 23(b)(3). Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on May 1, 2020. (Marienko, A.) (Entered: 05/01/2020)

May 1, 2020

May 1, 2020

Clearinghouse
71

RULING (attached). For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, Plaintiffs' 29 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendant's 38 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on June 10, 2020. (Marienko, A.) (Entered: 06/10/2020)

June 10, 2020

June 10, 2020

Clearinghouse
72

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel in accordance with Ruling 71 . Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr on 06/22/20. (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 06/23/2020)

June 22, 2020

June 22, 2020

PACER

Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge

June 23, 2020

June 23, 2020

PACER
73

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Virtual Status Conference set for 7/8/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge William I. Garfinkel. The parties will receive further instructions by email with a link to the Zoom conference. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
74

ORDER. This case was referred to the undersigned by Judge Haight in his ruling on cross motions for summary judgment as follows: The parties are directed to work together regarding identification and notice to potential class members, as well as consideration of the Board's ability to provide compensatory education to class members. To facilitate this process, the Court will refer the case to a Magistrate Judge. See E.R.K., 2014 WL 12887631, at *12 (ordering the parties to work with a Magistrate Judge regarding issues such as identification and notice to potential class members, consideration of the states ability to provide compensatory education to class members, and identification of potential service providers likely to be needed to provide compensatory education to class members). A virtual status conference is scheduled for July 8, 2020 at 10:00AM. The parties will provide a status report on the efforts made to identify the class members and the Board's ability to provide compensatory education to the class members. The parties will also provide suggestions on how the Court can help facilitate this process. The status reports may be emailed to the law clerk no later than July 7, 2020 at 12:00PM to: alyssa_esposito@ctd.uscourts.gov Signed by Judge William I. Garfinkel on 7/1/20.(Esposito, A.) (Entered: 07/01/2020)

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER

Calendar Entry

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER

Order

July 1, 2020

July 1, 2020

PACER
75

NOTICE of Appearance by Kasey Considine on behalf of A. R. (Considine, Kasey) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

July 6, 2020

July 6, 2020

PACER
76

NOTICE OF E-FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. A Follow-up Telephonic Status Conference set for 7/22/2020 at 01:30 PM before Judge William I. Garfinkel. The parties will call the conference line at the appointed time at: (877) 336-1831; Access Code: 49-24-598. The parties may email the law clerk by July 21 at 12:00PM if they would prefer to proceed by Zoom and/or to update the Court on pending matters at: alyssa_esposito@ctd.uscourts.gov (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER
77

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William I. Garfinkel: Virtual Status Conference held on 7/8/2020. Total Time: 1 hour (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER
78

NOTICE OF HEARING: Counsel are hereby notified that the Court will hold a status conference on Thursday, July 9, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. in a teleconference hearing. Counsel should be prepared to address any outstanding issues in the case (e.g., judgment, requests to stay the case, settlement of any unresolved matters). Counsel are directed to dial into the conference at (877) 336-1829 at the appointed time and enter the code 5451650 (followed by pound (#)). Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on July 8, 2020. (Dorais, L.) Modified on 7/8/2020 - corrected date of hearing (Barry, Donna). (Entered: 07/08/2020)

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER

Docket Entry Correction re 78 Notice of Hearing on Motion: Hearing date was updated to Thursday, July 9, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. All other information contained within the Notice remains unchanged. (Barry, Donna)

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER

Calendar Entry

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER

Status Conference

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER

Notice of Hearing on Motion

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER

Docket Annotation

July 8, 2020

July 8, 2020

PACER
79

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/9/2020. Total Time: 1 hour and 8 minutes (Barry, Donna) (Entered: 07/09/2020)

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER

Status Conference

July 9, 2020

July 9, 2020

PACER
80

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Connecticut State Board of Education. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ACTDC-5966282. (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 07/10/2020)

July 10, 2020

July 10, 2020

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Connecticut

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Education

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 15, 2016

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Class of individuals with disabilities under the age of 22 who seek to receive public education services.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Connecticut State Board of Education, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Indv. w/ Disab. Educ. Act (IDEA), Educ. of All Handcpd. Children Act , 20 U.S.C. § 1400

Availably Documents:

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: 113,485.82

Order Duration: 2020 - None

Content of Injunction:

Reinstatement

Discrimination Prohibition

Issues

General:

Education

Individualized planning

Special education

Discrimination-basis:

Age discrimination

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Mental Disability:

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run