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 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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6127118/parties/r-v-connecticut-state-board-of-education/

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alisberg, Nancy B. (Connecticut)

Considine, Kasey (Connecticut)

Cushman, Catherine E. (Connecticut)

Deyoe, Sonja (Connecticut)

Attorney for Defendant

Cunningham, Darren P. (Connecticut)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Alisberg, Nancy B. (Connecticut)

Considine, Kasey (Connecticut)

Cushman, Catherine E. (Connecticut)

Deyoe, Sonja (Connecticut)

Kim, Jason H. (Connecticut)

Attorney for Defendant

Cunningham, Darren P. (Connecticut)

Urban, Ralph E. (Connecticut)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

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	April 5, 2019	April 5, 2019 Order/Opinion 2019 WL 1499377
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	May 1, 2020	May 1, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 2092650
71 3:16-cv-01197	Ruling on the Parties' Cross Motions For Summary Judgment	June 10, 2020	June 10, 2020 Order/Opinion 2020 WL 3086032
81 3:16-cv-01197	Permanent Injunction Judgment and Order	July 10, 2020	July 10, 2020 Order/Opinion
95 3:16-cv-01197 20-02255	U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Opinion U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	July 8, 2021	July 8, 2021 Order/Opinion 5 F.4th 155
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

show / hide documents

Docket

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

Last updated April 16, 2026, 4:58 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	July 15, 2016	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	RECAP
2	July 15, 2016	Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Discovery due by 1/14/2017 Signed by Clerk on 7/15/2016.(Nuzzi, T) (Entered: 07/15/2016)	RECAP
3	July 15, 2016	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)	RECAP
4	July 15, 2016	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)	RECAP
	July 15, 2016	Add and Terminate Judges
	July 15, 2016	Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr added. (Oliver, T.)
5	July 18, 2016	NOTICE of Appearance by Sonja Deyoe on behalf of D. J. (Deyoe, Sonja) (Entered: 07/18/2016)	RECAP
	July 18, 2016	Request to Issue Summons
	July 18, 2016	Request for Clerk to issue summons as to D. J.. (Deyoe, Sonja)
6	July 19, 2016	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)	RECAP
7	July 19, 2016	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)	RECAP
8	July 19, 2016	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)	RECAP
	July 19, 2016	Order on Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
9	July 25, 2016	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)	RECAP
10	Sept. 7, 2016	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)	RECAP
11	Sept. 15, 2016	NOTICE of Appearance by Darren P. Cunningham on behalf of Connecticut State Board of Education (Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 09/15/2016)	RECAP
12	Sept. 15, 2016	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)	RECAP
13	Sept. 16, 2016	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)	RECAP
14	Sept. 16, 2016	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)	RECAP
	Sept. 16, 2016	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
	Sept. 16, 2016	Update Answer Deadline
	Sept. 16, 2016	Answer deadline updated for Connecticut State Board of Education to 11/18/2016. (Gould, K.)
15	Oct. 25, 2016	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)	RECAP
16	Oct. 26, 2016	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)	RECAP
	Oct. 26, 2016	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
	Oct. 27, 2016	Set Deadline: Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 10/28/2016 (LaMura, K.)
	Oct. 27, 2016	Set Deadlines/Hearings
17	Oct. 28, 2016	REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (Deyoe, Sonja) (Entered: 10/28/2016)	RECAP
18	Nov. 2, 2016	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)	RECAP
	Nov. 2, 2016	Order
	Nov. 3, 2016	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	Set Deadlines/Hearings
19	Nov. 14, 2016	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)	RECAP
20	Nov. 15, 2016	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)	RECAP
	Nov. 15, 2016	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
	Nov. 16, 2016	Answer deadline updated for Connecticut State Board of Education to 1/13/2017. (LaMura, K.)
	Nov. 16, 2016	Update Answer Deadline
21	Dec. 29, 2016	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)	RECAP
22	Jan. 10, 2017	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)	RECAP
	Jan. 10, 2017	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
	Jan. 11, 2017	Answer deadline updated for Connecticut State Board of Education to 2/14/2017. (LaMura, K.)
	Jan. 11, 2017	Update Answer Deadline
23	Feb. 14, 2017	ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Affirmative Defenses by Connecticut State Board of Education.(Cunningham, Darren) (Entered: 02/14/2017)	RECAP
24	June 5, 2017	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)	RECAP
25	June 8, 2017	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)	RECAP
	June 8, 2017	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
	June 8, 2017	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 9, 2017	Set Deadlines/Hearings
26	Aug. 22, 2017	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)	RECAP
27	Aug. 24, 2017	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)	RECAP
	Aug. 24, 2017	Order on Motion for Extension of Time
	Aug. 24, 2017	Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 12/13/2017 (Freberg, B)
	Aug. 25, 2017	Set Deadlines/Hearings
28	Sept. 1, 2017	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) 1 Memorandum in Support View on RECAP 2 Affidavit Jason H. Kim View on PACER 3 Exhibit A View on PACER 4 Exhibit B View on PACER 5 Exhibit C View on PACER 6 Exhibit D View on PACER 7 Exhibit E View on PACER	RECAP
29	Sept. 14, 2017	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) 1 Memorandum in Support View on RECAP 2 Statement of Material Facts View on PACER 3 Affidavit Jason H. Kim View on PACER 4 Exhibit A View on PACER 5 Exhibit B View on PACER 6 Exhibit C View on PACER 7 Exhibit D View on PACER 8 Exhibit E View on PACER 9 Affidavit O.W. View on PACER	RECAP
30	Sept. 15, 2017	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)	RECAP
32	Sept. 15, 2017	Reset Deadlines as to 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Responses due by 11/8/2017 (Freberg, B) (Entered: 09/18/2017)	RECAP
31	Sept. 18, 2017	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)	RECAP
	Sept. 18, 2017	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion
	Sept. 18, 2017	Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings
33	Oct. 2, 2017	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)	RECAP
34	Oct. 10, 2017	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)	RECAP
35	Oct. 11, 2017	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)	RECAP
36	Oct. 11, 2017	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)	RECAP
	Oct. 11, 2017	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion
	Oct. 13, 2017	Set Motion and Rcmd Ruling Deadlines/Hearings
37	Oct. 20, 2017	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)	RECAP
38	Nov. 8, 2017	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)	RECAP
39	Nov. 22, 2017	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)	RECAP
40	Dec. 13, 2017	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)	RECAP
41	March 23, 2018	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.)	RECAP
42	March 23, 2018	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)	RECAP
	March 23, 2018	Calendar Entry
43	April 6, 2018	Joint MOTION to Continue by D. J.. (Alisberg, Nancy) (Entered: 04/06/2018)	RECAP
44	April 9, 2018	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)	RECAP
45	April 9, 2018	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)	RECAP
	April 9, 2018	Calendar Entry
	April 9, 2018	Order on Motion to Continue
46	April 19, 2018	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)	RECAP
47	April 19, 2018	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)	RECAP
48	April 19, 2018	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)	RECAP
49	April 19, 2018	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)	RECAP
	April 19, 2018	Calendar Entry
	April 19, 2018	Calendar Entry
	April 19, 2018	Status Conference
50	May 29, 2018	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)	RECAP
51	May 29, 2018	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)	RECAP
	May 29, 2018	Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 6/15/2018. (Kaczmarek, S.)
52	June 15, 2018	Joint STATUS REPORT by D. J.. (Kim, Jason) (Entered: 06/15/2018)	RECAP
53	June 26, 2018	NOTICE of Appearance by Catherine E. Cushman on behalf of D. J. (Cushman, Catherine) (Entered: 06/26/2018)	RECAP
54	June 27, 2018	First MOTION for Nancy B. Alisberg to Withdraw as Attorney by D. J.. (Alisberg, Nancy) (Entered: 06/27/2018)	RECAP
55	June 27, 2018	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)	RECAP
56	July 20, 2018	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)	RECAP
57	Aug. 17, 2018	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)	RECAP
58	Aug. 29, 2018	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)	RECAP
59	Aug. 29, 2018	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)	RECAP
60	Aug. 29, 2018	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)	RECAP
61	Sept. 28, 2018	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)	RECAP
62	Oct. 12, 2018	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)	RECAP
63	April 5, 2019	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.)	RECAP

show / hide docket entries

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

State

Connecticut State Board of Education

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Other Dockets:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 20-02255

District of Connecticut 3:16-cv-01197

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Complaint (any)

Findings Letter/Report

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Monetary Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Reinstatement (job, contract, grant, etc.)

Amount Defendant Pays: 113,485.82

Issues

General/Misc.:

Education

Individualized planning

Disability and Disability Rights:

Disability, unspecified

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Special education

Discrimination Basis:

Age discrimination

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Recommended Citation

Case Summary of A.R. v. Connecticut State Board of Education, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/18266/ (last updated 7/13/2022).