Case: Petties v. D.C

1:95-cv-00148 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: Jan. 29, 1995

Closed Date: Dec. 19, 2012

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On January 29, 1995, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, plaintiffs, minor students eligible for special education and their parents sued the District's public school system, sought a preliminary injunction, and sought to certify a class of students with disabilities who were entitled to or received special education instruction and services from the District of Columbia Public Schools ("DCPS"). Plaintiffs had private counsel and attorneys from University Legal Services an…

On January 29, 1995, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, plaintiffs, minor students eligible for special education and their parents sued the District's public school system, sought a preliminary injunction, and sought to certify a class of students with disabilities who were entitled to or received special education instruction and services from the District of Columbia Public Schools ("DCPS"). Plaintiffs had private counsel and attorneys from University Legal Services and the National Disability Rights Network.

On March 17, 1995, District Judge Paul L. Friedman found that the plaintiffs' complaint and preliminary injunction proof established, as the complaint alleged, that the defendants had placed numerous DCPS students in private special education facilities pursuant to the district's obligation to provide an appropriate placement for these students; that the defendants had entered into contracts or other agreement with private firms or other entities for the provision of special education related services to students attending public schools within the DCPS system; that the defendants were required by law to maintain these students' placements and related services by paying the costs thereof; but that the defendants had not paid the costs of private special education placements or related services either fully or on a current or timely basis for at least the 1994-1995 school year. Consequently, Judge Friedman found that the defendants violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") and other laws and regulations intended to ensure that DCPS students with special education needs received a free, appropriate education. He adjudged that, unless the defendants fully and immediately funded all DCPS students then in private special education placements and/or receiving related services from private providers and, in addition, gave adequate written assurances that such payments would be made on a current basis in the future, many, if not all of those students would have those placements and/or services terminated, and with no indication that appropriate alternative placements would be available, leaving students' individual needs unmet. The court issued its' preliminary injunction, obligating DCPS to make timely payments to the special education facilities, and also certified a class, described as "all [DCPS] students currently placed in private special education schools or receiving special education and/or related services from a private third party provider, all [DCPS] students placed in public schools who currently are receiving related services from private providers, and all [DCPS] students who have been determined by an administrative decision or by agreement with the DCPS to be eligible to receive services from private providers (including private placements)." Petties v. District of Columbia, 881 F. Supp. 63 (D.D.C. 1995). This was but the start of long, sometimes contentious litigation.

A second case against DCPS making similar allegations on behalf of a child with learning and emotional disabilities, and his mother, also resulted in a similar order from the court. Plaintiffs in both cases moved, little more than a month after the preliminary injunctions issued, to have the defendant held in contempt, based upon the DCPS' announcement that it intended to terminate funding for tuition and transportation for the private school placement of these special needs children. In a single ruling applicable to both cases, the court held the district in contempt upon that basis (rejecting other grounds asserted to also make a contempt finding). Judge Friedman directed that the defendant notify the private schools that its termination of payment announcement would not apply to them. He further ordered payment within 14 days of sums owed to these facilities and that the DCPS provide transportation for the special needs students to the private schools. Petties v. District of Columbia, 888 F. Supp. 165 (D.D.C. 1995).

Part of the reason the judge rejected other asserted bases for holding DCPS in contempt was that some students' special education placements were funded by the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services (DHS), rather than by DCPS, making it unclear whether the court's orders included these students. Consequently, plaintiffs moved to amend the class description and to modify the preliminary injunction to make it clear that DHS-funded special needs students were within these orders' terms. Judge Friedman granted these modifications on July 21, 1995, ruling that IDEA applied to DHS-funded special needs students, as well as those funded directly by DCPS. Petties v. District of Columbia, 894 F. Supp. 465 (D.D.C. 1995).

As the new school year approached, defendants' counsel obtained an extension of time to gather data to ensure payments were made to education service providers, as required by the court's earlier orders but, when the school year began, numerous providers had not been paid, the extension period had elapsed, and services were being, or were about to be, denied to some in the plaintiff class. An emergency hearing occurred, at plaintiffs' request, to impose contempt sanctions against DCPS and its' management. These defendants were again found in contempt of the court's orders and in violation of IDEA. The court issued an order directing defendants to make specific payments to specific providers by certain dates and imposing a fine of $25,000 for each calendar day that the defendants did not comply with the payment order. Petties v. District of Columbia, 897 F. Supp. 626 (D.D.C. 1995).

For several years afterward, the parties had a consent order allowing for payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees based upon periodic submissions by plaintiffs' counsel of amounts owed. An appropriates act was passed for the District of Columbia containing a section that the defendants' counsel argued precluded payment of these fees, and modification of the consent order was sought by the defense. Judge Friedman rejected the effort, ruling that the plaintiffs case was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, making the IDEA provision for attorney fee payment inapplicable and thereby also making the payment limitation in the appropriations act inapplicable. Accordingly, the court ordered payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fee submissions which had gone unpaid since the effective date of the appropriations act. Petties v. District of Columbia, 55 F. Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C. 1999) (Judge Paul L. Friedman).

On August 7, 2000, the court accepted the parties' consent order addressing transportation and other issues concerning provision by DCPS of services to the special needs student plaintiff class. One aspect of the order created a school transportation administrator for a limited term. The parties reached an agreement to extend that term but, late in 2001, without notice to the plaintiffs, the defendants decided not to extend that term and to eliminate the transportation coordinator position. Plaintiffs then moved, on an emergency basis, for a court order to preserve the status quo and to extend the coordinator's term for 60 days, but Judge Friedman denied their requests on February 6, 2002. He chided the defendants for their reneging and lack of notice to plaintiffs, but said that as the position and its limits had been created through the parties' agreement, he had no authority to extend the position. He noted that the defendants still had the obligation of providing transportation services to the plaintiff class and their decision that they could do so without the continuation of a transportation coordinator's services was a permissible judgment. Petties v. District of Columbia, 183 F. Supp.2d 73 (D.D.C. 2002). An unpublished order March 13, 2002, by Judge Friedman denied plaintiffs' motion regarding a show cause hearing at which defendants might be (again) found in contempt, this time for violation of a July 10, 2001, consent order; however, we have no copy of that consent order nor of the plaintiffs' motion and do not know the precise nature of this particular dispute.

Transportation of these special needs students continued to raise issues. By 2002, a Special Master existed in the case and had made reports to the court on compliance by the defendants. One report prompted the court to issue an order on July 17, 2002, obligating the defendant school district to provide, on an on-going basis, the Special Master with updated, detailed, and accurate information about students transported and to keep and to make available for review logs of "dry run" transportation efforts. The order provided that defense failure to keep and provide this information would result in fines. Petties v. District of Columbia, 211 F. Supp.2d 141 (D.D.C. 2002). Later in the year, plaintiffs sought and obtained another preliminary injunction, evidently prompted by the DCPS' failure to pay for services and transportation for students attending two particular private facilities. On November 14, 2002, in a preliminary injunction, Judge Friedman ordered DCPS to make payments of one-and-one-half million dollars to each facility, to make regular monthly payments thereafter, to negotiate with the facilities, and to be monitored by the Special Master, in resolving past due and future payment obligations. He also ordered that procedural due process be provided prior to changes in students' educational placement which may result from failure to resolve the payment issues. While the injunction itself was not published, at first, the court's opinion supporting the injunction appears at Petties v. District of Columbia, 238 F. Supp.2d 88 (D.D.C. 2002). The opinion notes that the parties had consented to an August 28, 1996, plan for structured periodic payments to private education service providers to ensure that late or partial payments to these providers did not re-occur. To Judge Friedman, disregard of this 1996 plan, incorporated then in an unpublished court order, and continued violation of IDEA obligations could not be excused by the District's financial constraints. Id. Later, both the opinion and the injunction were published at Petties v. District of Columbia, 238 F. Supp.2d 114 (D.D.C. 2002).

Students, parents, and education service providers were not the only ones complaining of ill treatment by DCPS. The Special Master in the case, Elise T. Baach, had to make a request to the court for an order requiring the defendants to produce information to her regarding student transportation issues and defendants proposed closure of certain objectives established in the Exit Plan by which the DCPS might achieve an end to court supervision. The court noted that, after the Special Master's request had been frustrated by the defendants and she had to make the request through the court, she received the information. Thus, Judge Friedman made no contempt or other finding at that time, but he cautioned defense counsel to review the July 8, 1997, opinion and order of reference in the case and to fully comply with each provision therein, or risk sanction by the court. Petties v. District of Columbia, 263 F. Supp.2d 55 (D.D.C. 2003).

In the summer of 2003, the parties and the Special Master agreed that an independent transportation administrator should be appointed to operate and improve the DCPS' transportation obligations to disabled students. The court issued an unpublished consent order making this appointment on June 25, 2003. Among other things, the order provided the administrator authority over a $60 million transportation budget. Payment of invoices for non-transportation educational services would sometimes be delayed or contested by DCPS, in part because of a policy it adopted in December 2002, to supposedly encourage higher attendance rates by students at the private facilities. Such disputes led to a ruling by Judge Friedman that the policy had been invalidly enacted. Petties v. District of Columbia, 298 F. Supp.2d 60 (D.D.C. 2003). Disputes over DCPS failures in payment of invoices or reimbursement of expense would, at times, be resolved by hearings held by the Special Master or by hearing officers she appointed. Examples of the results of such hearings can be reviewed in the database for this case at the documents dated March 23, 2004, and November 7, 2006, and designated as document ED-DC-1-0006 and ED-DC-1-0007, respectively.

On April 21, 2006, Judge Friedman's unpublished order confirmed, over defense objection, that the Transportation Administrator had the authority to negotiate and enter into collective bargaining agreements on behalf of the DCPS Division of Transportation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed this ruling in an unpublished per curiam decision on May 1, 2007.

The docket sheet for this case reflects continued payment dispute and Special Master report activity throughout 2007.

In her July 2, 2007 report, the Special Master requested funds from the Court Registry to create the nonprofit, the District of Columbia Association for Special Education (DCASE). The court approved the use of the funds on July 20.

The court accepted several of the Special Master’s contentions in an order dated October 30, 2007. First, the court agreed that the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE) had probably drafted the defendants’ opposition response to the Special Master’s report, and that the OSSE lacked sufficient familiarity with the history of this case. The court reiterated that the parties had an obligation to comply with the court’s orders until the case is settled or otherwise resolved, and compliance requires awareness of those orders. The court thus ordered the OSSE to provide the Special Master with information of the agency’s policies and practice with respect to rate-setting for nonpublic schools, and any written procedures OSSE had for providing DCPS with rates for nonpublic special education programs. OSSE also had to share the names of the individuals responsible for sending and receiving that information and any applicable timelines. The DCPS had to send copies of any agreements it had with any agency, nonpublic special education program, or public charter school with a provision for binding alternative dispute resolution procedures. This also included a report of any draft contracts.

On January 7, 2008, the court awarded plaintiffs attorneys’ fees of $114,503.14 and costs of $1,590.72 for the period of September 1, 2004 to February 28, 2005. Due to the Districts’ fee cap, the parties agreed and the court amended its order to require the District to pay only the costs within the first 60 days of the order.

The docket sheet for this case reflects continued payment dispute and Special Master report activity throughout 2008. The court regularly adopted the Special Master’s recommendations on third-party payment disputes and Special Master fees.

On March 11, 2008, the court held that the attorneys fees cap under the District of Columbia Appropriations Act does not apply to prevailing parties in suits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Under the clear language of the statute, the cap applied only to attorneys representing individual parties, whereas the plaintiffs’ attorneys here represented hundreds or thousands of parties. The court thus granted the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs from September 1, 2004 to November 30, 2004.

On April 16, 2008, pursuant to its January 18, 2008 order, the court determined that the District must pay the plaintiffs $114,503 in fees and $1,590.72 in costs. The District filed a motion on May 8, 2008 to amend the court’s June 25, 2003 order to increase the amount the Transportation Administrator may expend in fiscal year 2008. On May 12, the court granted the District’s motion. The court ordered the registry on June 17, 2008 to reimburse the District for funding for DCASE that the Special Master had included in her costs and fees while the defendant’s motion to cap attorneys fees was pending. The amount totaled $175,404.50.

The docket sheet for this case reflects continued payment dispute and Special Master report activity throughout 2009 and 2010. The court regularly adopted the Special Master’s recommendations on third-party payment disputes and Special Master fees.

In early January 2009, the plaintiffs filed a series of motions relating to the defendants’ failure to comply with the November 8, 2004 payment order. The issue arose over the District’s proof of residency requirement for student enrollment. Students attending nonpublic schools while receiving District tuition payments must verify residency at the Office for Student Residency Verification. After the plaintiffs’ attempt to resolve the disputed residency informally failed, they sought a preliminary injunction requiring the defendants to refrain from terminating any class member’s special education payments or transportation until there has been complete administrative review for each student. Plaintiffs’ counsel believed 467 class members were at risk of losing their placements when the motion was filed on January 27, 2009. The court heard oral arguments on February 17, 2009. Two days later, the court denied the preliminary injunction motion, finding that there were adequate safeguards to prevent widespread funding terminations for students who were in fact residents.

On March 11, 2009, Judge Friedman referred the issue of attorneys’ fees to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay per the parties’ wishes.

In July 2009, the court agreed to amend the June 2003 Order to increase the Transportation Administrator’s budget to $76.6 million for the fiscal year 2009. The court increased the fiscal 2009 budget again on August 17 and December 15, 2009, and on January 6, 2010.

The parties came to a new agreement on the terms and conditions for payment of class member special education placements and services. The court accepted this agreement on August 5, 2009 to replace the November 8, 2004 order.

On October 20, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for $1,122,114.67, covering the period of March 1, 2005 to November 30, 2007. The defendants responded with an emergency motion to alter and amend the order, arguing the order violated fee caps imposed by Congress and the Anti-Deficiency Act. The court denied the motion on October 30, noting that it had already found the fee cap inapplicable to class actions in its 2008 order. 538 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2008). The defendants did not raise the Anti-Deficiency Act objection in their briefs or oral argument, so the court refused to amend its ruling on this ground.

The plaintiffs filed two new motions in February 2010 for attorneys’ fees and costs for December 1, 2007 to February 29, 2008 and March 1, 2008 to May 31, 2008. On February 4, the court granted the first motion of $156,969.53, reduced by two-thirds because the plaintiffs’ role in monitoring a related case was “at most, secondary.” The court agreed to exclude time spent on residency verification because the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties on that issue. The court granted the second motion in its entirety of $141,936.90, recognizing that the plaintiffs’ billing judgment was “to be applauded.” The plaintiffs won a total of $286,985.78 in fees and costs, as the February 18, 2010 order calculates. The court denied the District’s motion to stay this order on April 16, 2010.

The District had filed a motion in December 2009 to transition control of the Department of Transportation back to the District. Both parties agreed that the transition should begin but disagreed on the details. In its March 4, 2010 emergency motion for a status conference on the issue, the District argued a decision on the transition should come before a ruling on the Transportation Administrator’s request to increase the DOT’s budget. The plaintiffs argued the beginning of the transition should be limited to control over bus operations, as inadequate funding and the removal of judicial supervision could have “easily undercut” the improvements the District had made. On March 19, the court denied the motion, agreeing with the plaintiffs that no emergency existed and sharing the plaintiffs’ concern that the District’s proposed budgetary solution of lengthening ride times could deprive special needs students of their IDEA rights. However, the court encouraged the parties to resume good faith discussions on the matter rather than resort to judicial resolution.

After further discussion, the parties accepted and the court adopted the Transportation Administrator’s transition plan on May 5, 2010. The court appointed a Supervising Court Master for the transition and discharged the Transportation Administrator. The District was to begin assuming management control of the DOT, and the Supervising Court Master could resume control in the event of the District’s material breach of its substantive obligations. Beginning October 1, 2010, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education would assume the powers and duties under the June 25, 2003 Consent Order. The District agreed to fund the DOT at a level sufficient to protect students. The Supervising Court Master was to report periodically to the court. Later granting the parties’ joint motion, the court extended the transition period to April 30, 2011.

On September 30, 2010, the court denied the District’s March 20, 2009 motion to vacate the 1995 preliminary injunction and payment orders. The District argued the injunction and payment orders had “outlived their usefulness.” The plaintiffs argued the orders guaranteed accurate and timely payment to private providers, and to remove them would be disruptive as the case neared its final resolution. The court agreed granting the motion would be disruptive and counter-productive to the case’s finality. The District appealed this decision on October 27, 2010. The DC Circuit reversed the decision, on December 2, 2011, based on the district court’s failure to address whether the circumstances had changed such that continued enforcement of the preliminary injunction was contrary to the public interest. 662 F.3d 564. The Circuit Court remanded to determine whether the motion should be granted in light of these circumstances. However, as detailed below, it appears that by the time the DC Circuit issued this decision, the District’s compliance under the transition plan was improving and the case was coming to a close. The court vacated the preliminary injunction in its final judgment, discussed below.

The docket sheet for this case reflects continued payment dispute and Special Master report activity throughout 2011. The court regularly adopted the Special Master’s recommendations on third-party payment disputes and Special Master fees. One third party vendor appealed the Special Master’s findings to the court, but the court affirmed the Special Master’s findings. 779 F.Supp.2d 95.

The plaintiffs had four motions pending for attorneys’ fees and costs that the court denied without prejudice on March 3, 2011. Noting a recent court of appeals’ decision, the court directed the parties to discuss settlement or mediation of the fees. The parties came to an agreement for fees covering June 1, 2008 to August 31, 2009. Reflecting this agreement, the court awarded the plaintiffs $791,223.37 in fees and costs on May 12, 2011.

On January 31, 2011, the Supervising Court Master sent a letter to the court. He reported “substantial performance problems” at the DOT, and warned that he may initiate the process for declaring a material breach. The budget cuts threatened exacerbating the problem and violating the Transition Order. The DOT had more routes than operational vehicles. The Court Master believed the District had made some progress, although the reported level of compliance fell short of what was acceptable, and he had “substantial doubts about the accuracy of the reported information.” He advised the court that the transition period would likely need to be extended until at least October 1, 2011.

On April 15, 2011, the Supervising Court Master submitted his report and recommendation on the DOT transition. He had received an improvement plan from the Office of the State Superintendent for Education a few hours after he sent his January letter to the court. He found it “disappointing in its quality and substance, much like almost every other plan” from the District in this matter. The Court Master and the Superintendent’s teams met in mid-March. The Court Master found problems with the District’s compliance with on-time arrival and ride time requirements, but noted “substantial progress” and more credible information. He criticized the inadequate transparency and communication from the Superintendent’s Office, however, he noted progress under the new Superintendent. He thus declined to find material breach but recommended extension of the transition period to October 1, 2011. The court ordered the extension on April 27, 2011.

The Supervising Court Master submitted his second report on July 22, 2011. He wrote that the DOT under the Superintendent’s supervision had “never been in compliance.” He concluded the city lacked the capacity to comply, and the situation had deteriorated due to the DOT’s inability to organize and maintain its aging buses, “jeopardizing the safety of special needs students.” The DOT did not report its failure to timely inspect brakes. The DOT had no discernable plans to correct the problems, especially in light of the District’s failure to allocate adequate funds to the DOT. The firing of the head of the DOT and the DOT’s Fleet Manager created a “leadership vacuum.” The Court Master thus initiated material breach proceedings for returning control of the DOT to the Transportation Administrator. Following the District’s response to this report, the Court Master filed a formal notification of material breach on August 9, 2011.

The Supervising Court Master submitted his third report on October 10, 2011. He declined to exercise his authority to assume control of the DOT because of City Administrator Allen Lew’s “good faith effort” to cure the material breaches. The Court Master recommended extending the transition period until October 31, 2012. He later recommended that the District submit compliance reports to himself and the plaintiffs’ counsel. On November 14, 2011, the court adopted both recommendations.

On June 21, 2012, the District filed a motion to vacate the November 14, 2011 order and all other transportation orders, and to restore the District’s authority over the DOT. In response, the plaintiffs filed a motion for limited discovery and more time to respond. The court granted the request for more time to respond to the District’s motion to vacate, and held the motion for discovery in abeyance pending the filing of the District’s opposition.

The parties came to an agreement on attorneys fees and costs for the period of September 1, 2009 to November 30, 2009. The court thus granted the plaintiffs $162,532.89 on November 28, 2011. The parties agreed to fees for the period of December 1, 2009 to February 28, 2010. The court then granted the plaintiffs $154,619.66 on March 1, 2012. For the period of March 1, 2010 to May 31, 2010, the parties agreed to $160,476.64 in fees. The court granted the plaintiffs this amount on May 4, 2012. For the period of June 1, 2010 to August 31, 2010, the parties agreed to $113,047.43. The court approved this amount on June 1, 2012. For the period of September 1, 2010 to November 30, 2010, the parties agreed to $104,600.75. The court approved this on August 1, 2012. For the period of December 1, 2010 to August 31, 2012, the parties agreed to $950,000. The court approved this on December 15, 2012.

On October 4, 2012, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to vacate a series of payment orders to private providers of special education and related services. The parties sought this order to allow the District to implement its final rules governing the vendor payment and dispute process. The court retained authority over a set of disputes listed in the order.

On October 11, 2012, the Supervising Court Master submitted his fourth report. He found that by the end of the 2011-2012 school year, the DOT operated in compliance with the Transition Order. The data showed steady improvement in meeting the 94% on-time arrival standard. The Court Master thus recommended allowing the Transition Order to expire on October 31, 2012. The Court Master submitted an updated report on November 6, with new statistics supporting his expectation that the on-time rate would continue to improve.

The parties filed a joint motion to begin the process of dismissing the case on October 26, 2012. They sought preliminary approval for final dismissal, a notice to the class, a deadline for class member responses, and a scheduling of a fairness hearing. The court granted this motion on November 9, 2012. Beginning November 15, 2012, the District was to publish the class notice on a variety of forums. The court set the fairness hearing for December 19, 2012. The court ordered on December 14, 2012, that the parties, the Supervising Court Master, and the Special Master make presentations at the fairness hearing explaining their views on the dismissal.

The court entered its final judgment and order of dismissal on December 19, 2012. The court vacated the effectiveness of its orders governing transportation and the 1995 preliminary injunction. It retained jurisdiction over the ten remaining vendor payment disputes and over attorneys fees for September 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. The dismissal was with prejudice and binding on all class members.

The court continued to adopt the Special Master’s recommendations throughout 2013. The parties came to an agreement on the attorneys’ fees and costs for the period of September 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. The court thus granted the plaintiffs $129,000 on April 2, 2013. The court adopted a Special Master report on December 22, 2014 regarding payments to a vendor.

According to press reports (though there is no indication in the docket confirming), on December 6, 2014, the Court ended the lawsuit.

Summary Authors

Mike Fagan (6/18/2008)

Erica Lignell (3/2/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4640650/parties/petties-v-district-of-columbia/


Judge(s)

Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)

Randolph, Arthur Raymond (District of Columbia)

Sentelle, David Bryan (District of Columbia)

Walton, Reggie B. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Andalman, Elliottt Denbo (Maryland)

Bagby, Kelly R. (District of Columbia)

Bond, Johnnie D. (District of Columbia)

Feldesman, James L. (District of Columbia)

Fidell, Eugene R. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Friedman, Paul L. (District of Columbia)

Henderson, Karen LeCraft (District of Columbia)

Randolph, Arthur Raymond (District of Columbia)

Sentelle, David Bryan (District of Columbia)

Walton, Reggie B. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Andalman, Elliottt Denbo (Maryland)

Bagby, Kelly R. (District of Columbia)

Bond, Johnnie D. (District of Columbia)

Feldesman, James L. (District of Columbia)

Fidell, Eugene R. (District of Columbia)

Ghiladi, Khatereh S. (District of Columbia)

Goodman, Beth (District of Columbia)

Greczek, Elizabeth A. (District of Columbia)

Harvey, Tanya Ann (District of Columbia)

Johnson, Bradford Paul (District of Columbia)

Jordan, Lisea C. (District of Columbia)

Katz, Daniel Adlai (Maryland)

Lav, Jennifer Rachel (District of Columbia)

Lopez, Francisco (District of Columbia)

McKeithen, Melissa (District of Columbia)

Millerioux, Patricia Anne (District of Columbia)

Pogach, Dari Michal Yudkoff (District of Columbia)

Sheldon, David Patrick (District of Columbia)

Stein, Jesse (District of Columbia)

Temple, Donald M. (District of Columbia)

Thomson, Melissa McKeithen (District of Columbia)

Thorner, Robin C. (District of Columbia)

Wojahn, Patrick L. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Amato, Maria-Claudia T. (District of Columbia)

Bailey, Claude E. (District of Columbia)

Bolden, Melvin W. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Buck, Karen Ann (Virginia)

Connolly, Carol A. (District of Columbia)

Cooney, John F. (District of Columbia)

Copeland, Chad Wayne (District of Columbia)

Covington, Evangeline (District of Columbia)

Efros, Ellen A. (District of Columbia)

Gilmore, David I. (District of Columbia)

Gsell, Alyssa (District of Columbia)

Hendricks, Beatrice (District of Columbia)

Hopkins, Cathye (District of Columbia)

Horvath, Stephen Anthony (Virginia)

Hudson, Brian M. (District of Columbia)

Love, Richard Stuart (District of Columbia)

Malson, Laurel Pyke (District of Columbia)

Mazyck, Veleter (District of Columbia)

Mazyek, Veleter (District of Columbia)

McManus, Laurie Pouzzner (Virginia)

Miller, Barbara A. (District of Columbia)

Nesbitt, Katherine Jackson (District of Columbia)

Ney, Steven (Maryland)

Perry-Gaiter, Grace (District of Columbia)

Pinkston, Garland Jr. (District of Columbia)

Portnoy, Aryeh S. (District of Columbia)

Potter, Jonathon F. (District of Columbia)

Racca, Andrew W. (District of Columbia)

Rezneck, Daniel A. (District of Columbia)

Simmons, Jack M. III (District of Columbia)

Smith, Walter A Jr. (District of Columbia)

Utiger, Robert C. (District of Columbia)

Zielinski, Michael Edward (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Hajjar, Anton (District of Columbia)

Murphy, Mark J. (District of Columbia)

Shore, Anthony Michael (Maryland)

Welch, Richard Carey (District of Columbia)

Willcox, Thomas C. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Baach, Elise T. (District of Columbia)

Schneebaum, Steven (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

Mickle v. Breckinridge

Aug. 13, 2007 Docket

Docket (PACER)

Petties v. District of Columbia

Dec. 22, 2014 Docket
22

Preliminary Injunction

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

1995 WL 153027

March 17, 1995 Order/Opinion
21

Order of Class Certification

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

1995 WL 153023

March 17, 1995 Order/Opinion
23

Opinion

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

881 F.Supp. 63

April 4, 1995 Order/Opinion
33

Opinion

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

888 F.Supp. 165

May 12, 1995 Order/Opinion
66

Opinion

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

894 F.Supp. 465

July 21, 1995 Order/Opinion
86

Memorandum Opinion

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

897 F.Supp. 626

Sept. 11, 1995 Order/Opinion
618

Order [re: Vacating Consent Order]

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

55 F.Supp.2d 17

July 9, 1999 Order/Opinion
881

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Petties, et al v. District of Columbia, et al

183 F.Supp.2d 73

Feb. 6, 2002 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4640650/petties-v-district-of-columbia/

Last updated May 13, 2022

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT filed by plaintiff NIKITA SHONTA PETTIES, plaintiff SUSAN ZELAYA, plaintiff ELVAMARIE ZELAYA, plaintiff ANDREW FALK, plaintiff ANNE FALK, plaintiff GARY FALK, plaintiff CAMILLE FARROW, plaintiff TYRONE FARROW, plaintiff SHIRLEY FARROW, plaintiff BENJAMIN JAVITS, plaintiff JOSHUA JAVITS, plaintiff SABINA JAVITS, plaintiff VANESSA STECK, plaintiff BOB STECK, plaintiff SARAH STECK; attachments (ja) (Entered: 01/24/1995)

Jan. 20, 1995 PACER

SUMMONS (3) issued for defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, defendant FRANKLIN L. SMITH, defendant B. GARNETT PINKNEY (ja)

Jan. 20, 1995 PACER
2

MOTION filed by plaintiffs to certify class action (ja) (Entered: 01/24/1995)

Jan. 20, 1995 PACER
3

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT executed on 1/20/95 upon defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, defendant FRANKLIN L. SMITH, defendant B. GARNETT PINKNEY, all personally (ks) (Entered: 01/25/1995)

Jan. 24, 1995 PACER

MAILED CJRA brochure, Meet and Confer list, and Notice regarding dismissal to plaintiffs' NIKITA SHONTA PETTIES, SUSAN ZELAYA, ELVAMARIE ZELAYA, ANDREW FALK, ANNE FALK, GARY FALK, CAMILLE FARROW, TYRONE FARROW, SHIRLEY FARROW, BENJAMIN JAVITS, JOSHUA JAVITS, SABINA JAVITS, VANESSA STECK, BOB STECK, SARAH STECK . (blj)

Jan. 25, 1995 PACER
4

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for preliminary injunction ; Exhibits (14) (ks) (Entered: 01/26/1995)

Jan. 25, 1995 PACER
5

MEMORANDUM by defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, defendant FRANKLIN L. SMITH, defendant B. GARNETT PINKNEY in opposition to motion for preliminary injunction [4-1] by plaintiffs'; exhibits (9) (blj) (Entered: 02/02/1995)

Feb. 1, 1995 PACER
6

REPLY by plaintiff to response to memorandum in opposition response [5-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . (blj) (Entered: 02/09/1995)

Feb. 8, 1995 PACER
7

REQUEST (UNOPPOSED) by plaintiff for scheduling conference (blj) (Entered: 02/09/1995)

Feb. 8, 1995 PACER
8

MOTION (CONSENT) filed by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY to extend time to 2/14/95 to respond to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (blj) Modified on 02/09/1995 (Entered: 02/09/1995)

Feb. 8, 1995 PACER
9

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs' corrected declaration of Sarah Steck; Declaration (1) (blj) (Entered: 02/09/1995)

Feb. 8, 1995 PACER
10

RESPONSE by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY in opposition to motion to certify class action [2-1] by plaintiffs'. (blj) (Entered: 02/15/1995)

Feb. 14, 1995 PACER
11

REPLY by plaintiff to response to motion to certify class action [2-1] by plaintiffs'.; attachment (1) (blj) (Entered: 02/21/1995)

Feb. 17, 1995 PACER

STATUS CONFERENCE before Judge Paul L. Friedman : motion hearing set for 2:00 3/17/95; plaintiffs' supplemental affidavits due (one week before hearing) 3/10/95; defendants' supplemental affidavit due 3/15/95 ; Oral motion of Beth Goodman to allow Melissa Thomson appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiff, granted. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bm)

Feb. 23, 1995 PACER
12

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: confirming date set at the scheduling conference 2/23/95. (N) (bm) (Entered: 02/27/1995)

Feb. 27, 1995 PACER
13

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ks) (Entered: 03/09/1995)

March 8, 1995 PACER
14

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of supplemental declarations in support of their motion for prelimianry injunction; Declarations (19) (bulky) (ks) (Entered: 03/09/1995)

March 8, 1995 PACER
15

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [13-1] by plaintiffs (N) (bm) (Entered: 03/10/1995)

March 10, 1995 PACER
16

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in support of motion for preliminary injunction [4-1] by plaintiffs; Exhibits (3) (ks) (Entered: 03/16/1995)

March 10, 1995 PACER
17

RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum in support of their motion for preliminary injunction (ks) (Entered: 03/16/1995)

March 15, 1995 PACER
18

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : denying motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction [13-1] by plaintiffs (N) (bm) (Entered: 03/16/1995)

March 16, 1995 PACER
19

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY; supplemental payment update in support of defendants opposition to plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction; exhibits (3) (blj) (Entered: 03/17/1995)

March 16, 1995 PACER
20

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: vacating Court's order [18-1] of 3/16/95. (N) (bm) (Entered: 03/17/1995)

March 17, 1995 PACER

MOTION HEARING before Judge Paul L. Friedman granted motion for preliminary injunction [4-1] by plaintiffs, granted motion to certify class action [2-1] by plaintiffs Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bm)

March 17, 1995 PACER
21

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to certify class action [2-1] by plaintiffs; setting forth class definition. (N) (bm) (Entered: 03/20/1995)

March 17, 1995 PACER
22

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion for preliminary injunction [4-1] by plaintiffs; directing defendants shall within 14 days fully pay all costs outstanding as of the date of the Court's Order, including the costs of tuition and related services, of all private special education placements of DCPS students; defendants shall within 14 days fully pay all costs outstanding as of the date of the Court's Order, of all special education related services being provided to DCPS students by private provider pursuant to contracts or other agreements with DCPS; setting forth other instructions to defendants. (N) (bm) (Entered: 03/20/1995)

March 17, 1995 PACER
23

OPINION by Judge Paul L. Friedman (N) (ks) (Entered: 04/04/1995)

April 4, 1995 PACER
24

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: directing the Clerk to file the letter of 4/5/95; directing in the future the parties shall not address the Court by letter; setting forth correct filing instructions to the parties. (N) (bm) (Entered: 04/13/1995)

April 13, 1995 PACER
26

LETTER dated 4/5/95 to Judge Friedman updating the Court on the status of the case. (Filed pursuant to Order dated 4/13/95.) (bm) (Entered: 04/18/1995)

April 13, 1995 PACER
25

STATUS REPORT by plaintiffs (ks) (Entered: 04/18/1995)

April 17, 1995 PACER
27

MOTION filed by plaintiffs' for order to show cause ; Exhibits (7) (blj) (Entered: 04/24/1995)

April 21, 1995 PACER
28

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion for order to show cause [27-1] by plaintiffs; directing defendants shall show cause why they should not be held in contempt of the Court's Order of 3/17/95; defendants shall file a response to show cause due 5:00 5/2/95; if plaintiffs wish to respond they must do so by 5:00 p.m. on 5/3/95; show cause set for 9:30 5/4/95 (N) (bm) (Entered: 04/25/1995)

April 25, 1995 PACER
29

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs' submission regarding defendants' proposal for compliance with Court's order of March 17, 1995; exhibit (1) (blj) (Entered: 05/01/1995)

April 28, 1995 PACER
30

RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY to motion for order to show cause [27-1] by plaintiffs'; exhibits (6) (blj) (Entered: 05/03/1995)

May 2, 1995 PACER
31

RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiffs' to defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' motion for a show cause order [30-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; exhibits (6) (blj) (Entered: 05/04/1995)

May 3, 1995 PACER

MOTION HEARING before Judge Paul L. Friedman by plaintiffs motion for order to show cause [27-1] taken under advisement Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bm)

May 4, 1995 PACER
32

TRANSCRIPT filed of Preliminary Injunction hearing for date(s) of 3/17/95. Reporter: Santa Zizzo (ks) (Entered: 05/10/1995)

May 9, 1995 PACER
33

OPINION by Judge Paul L. Friedman (N) (bm) (Entered: 05/12/1995)

May 12, 1995 PACER
34

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: setting forth instructions to defendants; the parties shall submit by 5/19/95 a proposed order that implements paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Court's 3/17/95 preliminary injunction and outlines a process or procedure to dispose of outstanding costs and disputed claims. (N) (bm) (Entered: 05/12/1995)

May 12, 1995 PACER
35

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of proposed Order to their motion for preliminary injunction (ks) (Entered: 05/15/1995)

May 12, 1995 PACER
36

STATEMENT filed by defendants, regarding: Memorandum by Franklin L. Smith; Attachment (1) (ks) (Entered: 05/19/1995)

May 18, 1995 PACER
37

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for attorney's fees and costs against DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY ; Exhibit (2) (ks) (Entered: 05/22/1995)

May 19, 1995 PACER
38

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY; submission of proposed order (blj) (Entered: 05/22/1995)

May 19, 1995 PACER
39

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY submission to the Court a letter to the directors of the private special education schools/providers; exhibit (1) (blj) (Entered: 05/24/1995)

May 23, 1995 PACER
40

MOTION filed by defendants to extend time to 6/23/95 to respond to plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs (ks) (Entered: 06/01/1995)

June 1, 1995 PACER
41

MOTION filed by plaintiff to modify class certification, and for preliminary injunction ; Exhibits (16) (blj) (Entered: 06/02/1995)

June 1, 1995 PACER
43

RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiffs to motion to extend time to 6/23/95 to respond to plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs [40-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; Exhibit (1) (blj) (Entered: 06/05/1995)

June 2, 1995 PACER
42

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 6/23/95 to respond to plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs [40-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/05/1995)

June 5, 1995 PACER
44

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: directing the parties meet and confer and try to agree upon a simpler alternative proposed order that ensures compliance with the Court's Preliminary Injunction; the parties shall file the proposed order by 6/23/95; if the parties are unable to agree to a proposed order, each side may submit an alternative proposed order by 6/23/95. (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/08/1995)

June 8, 1995 PACER
45

MOTION filed by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY to extend time to 6/30/95 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to mofify class certification and preliminary injunction (blj) (Entered: 06/15/1995)

June 9, 1995 PACER
46

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 6/30/95 to respond to plaintiffs' motion to modify class certification and preliminary injunction by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/15/1995)

June 13, 1995 PACER
47

MOTION filed by defendants' DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY to extend time to 7/7/95 to respond to the Court's Order dated June 8, 1995 (blj) (Entered: 06/16/1995)

June 15, 1995 PACER
48

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for entry of plaintiffs' second proposed order re: compliance with preliminary injunction (ks) (Entered: 06/22/1995)

June 21, 1995 PACER
49

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of withdrawal of their motion for attorneys' fees and costs (ks) (Entered: 06/27/1995)

June 23, 1995 PACER
50

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: setting forth instructions to counsel status conference set for 10:00 8/10/95 ; attachment. (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/29/1995)

June 29, 1995 PACER
51

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : denying motion to extend time to 7/7/95 to respond to the Court's Order dated June 8, 1995 [47-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; a separate Order implementing this Court's Preliminary Injunction of 3/17/95 is issued this same day. (N) (bm) (Entered: 06/29/1995)

June 29, 1995 PACER
52

RESPONSE by defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, defendant FRANKLIN L. SMITH, defendant B. GARNETT PINKNEY in opposition to motion to modify class certification [41-1] by plaintiffs, motion for preliminary injunction [41-2] by plaintiffs; exhibits (2). (dot) (Entered: 07/03/1995)

June 30, 1995 PACER
53

MOTION (emergency) filed by plaintiffs for order to show cause ; Exhibits (11) (ks) (Entered: 07/10/1995)

July 7, 1995 PACER
59

REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion to modify class certification [41-1] and for preliminary injunction [41-2] by plaintiffs (ks) (Entered: 07/14/1995)

July 7, 1995 PACER
60

AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiffs; Exhibits (2) (ks) (Entered: 07/14/1995)

July 7, 1995 PACER
54

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs notifying the Court that Exhibits A and B filed on 7/7/95 were inadvertently attached to plaintiffs' first amended complaint. (bm) (Entered: 07/11/1995)

July 10, 1995 PACER
55

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs; memorandum in support of plaintiffs' emergency motion for show cause order. (bm) (Entered: 07/11/1995)

July 10, 1995 PACER
56

RESPONSE by defendants in opposition to emergency motion for order to show cause [53-1] by NIKITA SHONTA PETTIES; Exhibits (3) (ks) (Entered: 07/12/1995)

July 11, 1995 PACER
57

REPLY by plaintiffs to response to motion for order to show cause [53-1] by NIKITA SHONTA PETTIES; Exhibits (2); Attachments (2) (ks) (Entered: 07/13/1995)

July 12, 1995 PACER
58

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of Exhibits A & B to their reply memorandum in support of motion to modify class certification and prelimianry injunction; Exhibits (2) (ks) (Entered: 07/13/1995)

July 12, 1995 PACER

MOTION HEARING before Judge Paul L. Friedman: counsel for defendants will submit a letter to the Court in the afternoon of 7/14/95 or NLT the morning of 7/17/95 regarding the status of transportation for the student on Monday morning 7/17/95; taken under advisement by plaintiffs motion to modify class certification [41-1], or for preliminary injunction [41-2]; taken under advisement motion for order to show cause [53-1] by NIKITA SHONTA PETTIES Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bm)

July 14, 1995 PACER
61

SUBMISSION OF REPORT by defendants to the Court pursuant to Order of 6/29/95; Attachments (ks) (Entered: 07/17/1995)

July 14, 1995 PACER
62

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of letter from Charles Pollard, puruant to 7/13/95 hearing in court; Attachment (1) (ks) (Entered: 07/17/1995)

July 14, 1995 PACER
63

SECOND SUBMISSION TO THE COURT by defendant pursuant to Order of 6/29/95 [51-1]; Exhibits (2) (ks) (Entered: 07/18/1995)

July 17, 1995 PACER
64

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS of defendants in support of their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to modify class certfication and preliminary injunction; Exhibits (4) (ks) (Entered: 07/20/1995)

July 19, 1995 PACER
65

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: the Court will taken o further action at this time; the defendants will be subjected to fines upon any subsequent violations of the Court's 3/17/95 preliminary injunction. (N) (bm) (Entered: 07/20/1995)

July 20, 1995 PACER
66

OPINION by Judge Paul L. Friedman (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/21/1995)

July 21, 1995 PACER
67

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to modify class certification [41-1] and, granting motion for preliminary injunction [41-2] by plaintiffs; that the plaintiff class in this action shall be modified to specifically include all DCPS students with disabilities whose private special education placements and/or related services are funded by the District of Columbia Department of Human Services; and that defendants shall within (14) days of the date of this Order, fully pay all costs outstanding as of the date of this Order, including the costs of tuition and related services, of all private special education placements and/or related services of DCPS students for which the District of Columbia department of Human Services has been billed (See Order for details) (N) (ks) (Entered: 07/21/1995)

July 21, 1995 PACER
68

SUBMISSION OF JULY 1995 REPORT TO THE COURT by defendants DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, and B. GARNETT PINKNEY pursuant to the 6/29/95 Order; attachment. (bm) (Entered: 08/01/1995)

Aug. 1, 1995 PACER
69

MOTION filed by defendant DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, defendant FRANKLIN L. SMITH, defendant B. GARNETT PINKNEY to extend time to 8/18/95 to comply with the July 21, 1995 Order (blj) (Entered: 08/07/1995)

Aug. 4, 1995 PACER
70

RESPONSE (OPPOSITIONS) by plaintiffs to motion to extend time to 8/18/95 to comply with the July 21, 1995 Order [69-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (blj) (Entered: 08/08/1995)

Aug. 7, 1995 PACER
71

STATUS REPORT (SECOND) by plaintiffs (blj) (Entered: 08/10/1995)

Aug. 9, 1995 PACER

STATUS CONFERENCE before Judge Paul L. Friedman : granted motion to extend time to 8/18/95 to comply with the July 21 1995 Order [69-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; parties will submit an agreed order confirming dates set at the status conference Reporter: Santa Zizzo (bm)

Aug. 10, 1995 PACER
72

STATUS REPORT by defendants DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY a list of additional private special education schools to which an assurance letter was sent by DCPS pursuant to paragraph (1) of the 6/29/95 Order; exhibit (1) (blj) (Entered: 08/11/1995)

Aug. 10, 1995 PACER
73

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting in part, motion to extend time to 8/18/95 to comply with the July 21, 1995 Order [69-1]; that the time within which the defendants comply with certain paragraphs of the 1995 Order, is hereby enlarged to August 18, 1995; and the parties are to compy with the timetables in the separate order signed today. (N) (dot) (Entered: 08/15/1995)

Aug. 15, 1995 PACER
74

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : that the deadline for defendants to pay all outstanding balances for the private special education placements and servies of DHS-funded class members is extended to 8/18/95, with the understanding that no further extension will be granted; that defendants shall provide to plaintiffs' counsel and file with this Court on or before 8/18/95 a complete list of all such payments to private providers of special education and related services to DHS-dunded class member; that defendants' first monthly report is due 9/1/95, with such reports due thereafter on the first business day of each month; that defendants shall provide the required written assurance to all private providers of special education and related services to DHS-funded class members on or beore 9/1/95, along with copies of the both the 6/29/and 7/21/95 Orders of this Court and that, prior to doing so defendants shall obtain plintiffs' approval of said written assurance; that defendants shall provide to plaintiffs' counsel and file with the Court, on or before 9/1/95, a complete list of recipients of the written assurance and Orders described in paragrah (4) above, with addresses, telephone numbers and a contact person for each such recipient. (N) (dot) (Entered: 08/15/1995)

Aug. 15, 1995 PACER
75

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of a list of payments to private providers of special education and related services to DHS-funded students; Attachments (ks) (Entered: 08/21/1995)

Aug. 18, 1995 PACER
76

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, B. GARNETT PINKNEY supplemental submission; exhibits (2) (blj) (Entered: 08/22/1995)

Aug. 21, 1995 PACER
77

MOTION (second) filed by plaintiffs for attorneys' fees ; Attachment (1) (ks) (Entered: 08/24/1995)

Aug. 23, 1995 PACER
78

RESPONSE by plaintiffs to June 29, 1995 order [51-1] (blj) (Entered: 08/30/1995)

Aug. 29, 1995 PACER
79

STATUS REPORT (THIRD) by plaintiffs';exhibits (4) (tw) Modified on 08/30/1995 (Entered: 08/30/1995)

Aug. 29, 1995 PACER
80

NOTICE OF FILING by defendants of Exhibit A to its August 1995 Report; Exhibits (4) (ks) (Entered: 09/05/1995)

Sept. 1, 1995 PACER
81

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of a supplement to their Third Status Report, filed on 8/29/95; Supplement (ks) (Entered: 09/06/1995)

Sept. 5, 1995 PACER
82

MOTION filed by defendants to extend time to 9/14/95 to file a response to plaintiff's second motion for attorney's fees and costs (ks) (Entered: 09/06/1995)

Sept. 5, 1995 PACER
83

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of a corrected copy of their supplement to plaintiff's third status report; Supplement (ks) (Entered: 09/06/1995)

Sept. 6, 1995 PACER
84

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman : granting motion to extend time to 9/14/95 to file a response to plaintiff's second motion for attorney's fees and costs [82-1] by B. GARNETT PINKNEY, FRANKLIN L. SMITH, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (N) (bm) (Entered: 09/07/1995)

Sept. 7, 1995 PACER

SHOW CAUSE HEARING before Judge Paul L. Friedman: granting by NIKITA SHONTA PETTIES motion for order to show cause [53-1]; proposed orders to be presented. reporter: Santa Zizzo (bm)

Sept. 8, 1995 PACER
85

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of a proposed order, by directing at the Show-Cause hearing held 9/8/95 (ks) (Entered: 09/11/1995)

Sept. 8, 1995 PACER
86

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Judge Paul L. Friedman (N) (bm) (Entered: 09/11/1995)

Sept. 11, 1995 PACER
87

ORDER by Judge Paul L. Friedman: finding the defendants in contempt of the Court's Order of 8/15/95; directing defendants shall make checks available for pick up by the following providers by 9/12/95 at 2:00 p.m.; setting forth amount of checks and names of providers; defendants shall pay or cause to be paid by 9/15/95 at 2:00 p.m. all outstanding invoices to DCPS for private special education placements and/or related services rendered through 7/31/95; defendants shall pay or cause to be paid by 9/22/95 at 2:00 p.m. all outstanding to DHS for private special education placements and/or related services rendered through 7/31/95; a fine in the amount of $25,000 per day shall be assessed against defendants for each calendar day that defendants are not in full compliance with paragraphs 2 and 3; a fine in the amount of $5,000 per day shall be assessed against defendants for each calendar day that defendants are not in full compliance with paragraph 4 for the first five calendar days of noncompliance; thereafter a fine in the amount of $10,000 per day shall be assesses against defendants for each of the next five calendar days that defendants remain noncompliance with paragraph 4; thereafter a fine in the amount of $15,000 per day shall be assessed against defendants for each of the next five calendar days that defendants remain in noncompliance with paragraph 4; nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize the delay or reduction or withholding of any payment; after consultation with defendants, plaintiffs shall submit by 9/26/95, their proposal regarding modification of the Court's prior Orders as they pertain to, the payment schedule with which defendants must comply and the reporting requirements that apply to defendants. (N) (bm) (Entered: 09/11/1995)

Sept. 11, 1995 PACER
88

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for Special Declaratory and Injunctive relief ; Exhibits (2); Attachments (3) (ks) (Entered: 09/14/1995)

Sept. 13, 1995 PACER
89

SUBMISSION by defendants in response to order of 9/11/95 [87-1]; Exhibit (1) (ks) (Entered: 09/15/1995)

Sept. 14, 1995 PACER
90

MOTION filed by plaintiffs for emergency evidentiary hearing ; and for further injunctive relief; Exhibits (6) (ks) (Entered: 09/19/1995)

Sept. 18, 1995 PACER
91

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for plaintiffs by Melissa McKeithen Thomson (ks) (Entered: 09/21/1995)

Sept. 20, 1995 PACER
92

NOTICE OF FILING by plaintiffs of supplementary exhibits 7-12 to plaintiffs' memorandum in support of motion for emergency evidentiary hearing; Exhibits (6) (ks) (Entered: 09/21/1995)

Sept. 20, 1995 PACER

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Education

Special Collection(s):

Court-ordered receiverships

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 29, 1995

Closing Date: Dec. 19, 2012

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All students currently placed in public or private education schools or receiving special education and/or related services from a private third party provider, and all students who have been determined by the DCPS to be eligible to receive 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

District of Colombia, None

Public Schools of D.C., School District

Logan Public School, School District

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: ~2 million

Order Duration: 2007 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Receivership

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Funding

Disability:

disability, unspecified

Type of Facility:

Government-run