The court applied the familiar factors governing fee awards, including “‘(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney’s customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.’” S.C., 2024 WL 3518522, at *2 (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 186 n.3 (2d Cir. 2008)).

With respect to hourly rates, the court concluded that the magistrate judge adequately considered the relevant factors and reasonably determined that the case was not novel or difficult. The report characterized affidavits from other IDEA practitioners as self-serving, found survey data on New York City attorney rates insufficient as to education law practitioners, and rejected a ChatGPT-4 compilation of rate information as not probative and unreliable. Instead, the magistrate judge relied on prior fee awards found reasonable for the specific attorneys involved, which were lower than the rates requested.

The court also rejected the argument that the fee reduction improperly penalized the parent because the defendant did not contest the administrative case. It noted that counsel billed 88.8 hours preparing for a hearing that lasted 2 hours and 43 minutes, and more than 20 hours preparing a closing brief after learning that the defendant would not present a case. In addition, the court applied the IDEA’s offer of settlement provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), observing that the defendant had offered $35,000 in fees and that the court ultimately awarded $34,397.99 for fees incurred through the date of the offer. The court entered a total fee award of $34,397.99 and rejected the parent’s request for $88,290.00.

Reductions from requested fee amounts are not unusual, although the magnitude of the reduction here may draw attention. The court’s discussion of artificial intelligence is also notable. Relying on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the court observed that the ChatGPT response contained no probative information and cited a Second Circuit decision addressing AI fabrication of precedent. The magistrate judge stated: “In light of its propensity to fabricate information, ChatGPT, at least in its current iteration, should not be utilized to support a fee application.” S.C. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 23-CV-1266 (LGS) (JLC), 2024 WL 1447331, at *5 n.1, 124 LRP 10444 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2024).

The opinion underscores the court’s adherence to established fee-award principles while declining to credit AI-generated compilations as evidentiary support. Within the framework applied, the court treated both the billing record and the reliability of supporting materials as central to determining a reasonable award.

The parents filed suit on July 7, 2024, and litigation over emergency relief for pendency costs extended into the following year. They moved for summary judgment and later renewed their request for emergency relief on May 23, 2025. The requested relief was broad: a declaration that iBrain constituted each student’s pendency placement during proceedings concerning the 2024–25 extended school year; an order requiring funding of tuition, transportation, and, where applicable, nursing services throughout the administrative and judicial proceedings; and an order directing that payments be made directly to iBrain and other providers.

The four students’ procedural histories varied. In one matter, the Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) ordered partial transportation funding, and the State Review Officer (SRO) later ordered full funding; neither party appealed. In another, a pendency order required private transportation funding, and an SRO decision had issued, though the appeal period had not expired. In a third, the pendency order addressed transportation and related services, and an SRO decision had issued, but the record before the court did not include information about it. In the fourth, the pendency order included supplemental related services, nursing, and transportation, and the IHO decision was on appeal to the SRO.

The court began by addressing mootness. After criticizing aspects of the parents’ evidentiary submissions, it concluded that the claims regarding educational placement and tuition for the 2024–25 school year were moot. The undisputed record established that all pendency tuition payments for that year had been made. The voluntary cessation exception did not apply because the tuition dispute for that school year could not recur, and in some matters the pendency period itself had ended. A claim for late fees was deemed waived, both because it had not been properly raised and because the pendency orders did not include late fees, the iBrain contract did not treat late fees as tuition, and pendency tuition is paid retrospectively.

The analysis did not end there. With respect to transportation and nursing services for three students, the court determined that although some payments had been made, the plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory relief and to an order requiring payment of outstanding balances in the ordinary course of business. For one student, however, the IHO had denied inclusion of nursing services in the pendency order, and summary judgment was denied as to that claim. The court also emphasized that the ultimate merits determination regarding entitlement to transportation did not govern a claim seeking payment during pendency.

In addressing the mechanics of payment, the court acknowledged that IDEA does not require circumvention of ordinary payment procedures and that 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) operates as an automatic injunction with respect to educational placement, not payments. Still, it found that the specific circumstances mattered. Where the school year had concluded, all contractual services had been delivered, and reimbursement had been delayed for months, directing payment in the “ordinary course” made little sense. The court concluded that the full cost of the student’s transportation services for the academic year was long past due and must be reimbursed in full, and it entered orders addressing each student’s claims for related service payments.

The decision draws a clear line between moot tuition claims once fully paid and outstanding related service balances that remain unpaid after services are rendered. Within the confines of the pendency framework, the court treated completed services and prolonged delay as determinative under the facts presented.

The plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory education relief on behalf of a class of students with disabilities, alleging that the New York City Department and Board of Education, along with the Chancellor in her official capacity, violated IDEA by ending services when students turned twenty-one rather than continuing through the end of their twenty-first year. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On appeal, the Second Circuit first addressed the nature of IDEA’s exhaustion requirement. Relying on recent Supreme Court authority requiring “unmistakable evidence” before treating an exhaustion requirement as jurisdictional, the court concluded that IDEA’s exhaustion provision is a claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional bar. In reaching that conclusion, the court observed that several other circuits had already characterized IDEA exhaustion as nonjurisdictional and that the Second Circuit had previously left the issue unresolved.

The court then considered whether exhaustion should be excused. It explained that exhaustion may be excused where plaintiffs challenge a policy or practice of general applicability alleged to be contrary to law, an exception the court had recognized decades earlier. The court traced the exception to legislative history surrounding Congress’s response to Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984), and enactment of the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-372, 100 Stat. 796, emphasizing that the history informed the court’s approach to exhaustion rather than interpretation of statutory text.

Surveying decisions from other circuits, the court noted that exhaustion has been excused where claims present pure questions of law and administrative review would not advance the purposes of developing a factual record, applying agency expertise, or promoting efficiency. The Second Circuit reiterated that plaintiffs invoking the policy-or-practice exception must identify a specific policy of broad applicability and demonstrate that administrative proceedings would not meaningfully further those goals.

Applying that framework, the court concluded that the plaintiffs adequately identified an across-the-board policy of providing a free appropriate public education (FAPE) only until students turn twenty-one, rather than through their twenty-second birthday. The court further determined that requiring exhaustion would not serve the purposes of the exhaustion requirement because the central claim for declaratory relief was not tied to individual student circumstances, would not benefit from an administrative record, and did not require the exercise of educational discretion or expertise. The court declined to credit the defendants’ argument that individualized administrative proceedings could provide relief, concluding that the independent policy-or-practice ground was sufficient to excuse exhaustion.

The court emphasized that its decision did not resolve whether students are entitled to IDEA services through their twenty-second birthday, but instead addressed only the threshold exhaustion question. It vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

The decision reflects that IDEA’s exhaustion requirement functions as a claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional bar and that exhaustion may be excused where plaintiffs mount a facial challenge to a broadly applicable policy and administrative proceedings would not advance the purposes underlying exhaustion.

The student’s attendance issues dated back to seventh grade, when she missed more than ten percent of her classes and failed state-mandated exams. In eighth grade, despite twenty-five absences, the district provided targeted interventions that enabled her to pass all of her classes. During ninth grade, which began remotely during the COVID‑19 pandemic, the student enrolled in advanced coursework against the district’s recommendation for grade‑level classes and subsequently failed five of seven courses while missing between twenty‑four and twenty‑nine days of instruction. Teachers attributed her academic struggles to frequent absences rather than to a suspected learning disability, and she ultimately passed several courses through summer instruction.

In tenth grade, the pattern continued. The student again enrolled in advanced classes over the district’s objections and missed approximately twenty‑five days of school. Teachers reported that she performed well when present and attributed her academic difficulties to absenteeism. The district recommended additional academic support, which the parents declined. The parents later withdrew the student from school in February of her tenth‑grade year and began homeschooling. They filed a due process complaint the following September.

The district offered to evaluate the student in October 2022, but the parents refused consent. The parents later obtained an independent neuropsychological evaluation, which did not diagnose attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or dyslexia but identified learning disabilities in reading comprehension and mathematics. The district scheduled a meeting to review the evaluation, but the parents did not attend. The district concluded it lacked sufficient information to determine eligibility because the report did not address classroom performance or account for the student’s extensive absences.

After hearing, the impartial hearing officer ruled for the district, and the district court affirmed. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the district satisfied its child find duty by October 2022 when it initiated the evaluation process. Although the court acknowledged prior cases in which absenteeism contributed to triggering child find, it distinguished those decisions as involving additional indicators such as mental health concerns or behavioral or medical issues. Here, the parents routinely excused absences for family travel and minor medical reasons, and the record showed that teachers viewed absenteeism—not a suspected disability—as the source of the student’s academic problems.

The court also rejected the argument that the student’s poor academic performance alone triggered child find, emphasizing that the parents insisted on advanced coursework contrary to district advice and that the student performed adequately when attending school consistently. Because the student was ultimately found ineligible, the court further concluded that any alleged child find delay did not result in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

With respect to eligibility, the court noted that the independent evaluator failed to consider vision testing, classroom observations, teacher input, or whether the student’s difficulties reflected a lack of appropriate instruction caused by chronic absenteeism, as required by regulation. The court emphasized that the parents’ refusal to consent to district testing and their failure to attend eligibility meetings left the district with insufficient evidence. Based on the information available, the district’s determination that the student was not eligible for special education was reasonable.

The decision reflects that absenteeism, without accompanying indicators of disability, does not necessarily trigger child find obligations, and that eligibility determinations must account for whether academic difficulties stem from a disability or from a lack of instruction caused by repeated absences.

The student had autism, a speech impairment, and an intellectual disability, and communicated primarily through gestures, facial expressions, and a voice-assisted communication application. His behavior was disruptive and included hitting walls and furniture, jumping, spinning, elopement from school and the school bus, and significant toileting difficulties. Academically, the student functioned at approximately a kindergarten level while enrolled in fourth grade.

The record showed that the student had a consistent history of regression following interruptions in services. Between third and fourth grade, the district provided six weeks of half-day ESY services, although the parent requested additional support. When fourth grade began, the student exhibited significant regression in toileting and an escalation in elopement behaviors, including an incident in which he ran across a busy street and had to be restrained by bystanders. The parent filed a due process complaint seeking ESY services for all school breaks, a global positioning system (GPS) tracker, and an IEP goal addressing safe bus riding.

The hearing officer ruled in the parent’s favor and ordered full-summer ESY services and year-round access to a voice-assisted communication device. The district court affirmed. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit applied the factors articulated in Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 1997), focusing on whether the program was individualized, delivered in the least restrictive environment, coordinated among stakeholders, and likely to produce academic and nonacademic benefit. The court emphasized that the fourth factor—whether the student was likely to progress rather than regress—was critical.

The court of appeals held that the district court did not commit clear error in finding that the IEP was insufficiently individualized. Although the district implemented behavior strategies that had produced some progress in earlier grades, the student experienced severe regression after school breaks during third grade and again following the limited ESY program. The court described the regression as substantial and noted that the elopement behavior posed a grave safety risk. It concluded that the ESY services provided were not adequate to prevent regression or ensure meaningful benefit.

The Fifth Circuit also rejected the district’s argument that the lower courts improperly focused on remediating the student’s disability rather than measuring overall educational benefit. Distinguishing Klein Independent School District v. Hovem, 690 F.3d 390 (5th Cir. 2012), that emphasized academic advancement and district good-faith efforts, the court explained that academic progress does not outweigh evidence of persistent nonacademic regression. The record supported the conclusion that behavioral interventions were not working and that, despite the district’s laudable efforts, the student required more intensive and continuous services.

The decision reflects that an IEP must be sufficiently individualized to address both academic and nonacademic needs, that ESY determinations must account for documented patterns of regression, and that even earnest district efforts may deny FAPE where the program fails to prevent significant regression for a student with complex behavioral and safety needs.

The court described growing concerns with the careless use of generative artificial intelligence in legal filings, noting that impartial hearing officers and courts have increasingly encountered submissions containing irrelevant or nonexistent case law, inaccurate quotations, and arguments that lack coherence. Against that backdrop, the court found that the advocate’s filings in this case contained at least forty-two citations that did not exist or were otherwise improper.

In addition to the nonexistent citations, the court identified numerous violations of the local civil rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The filings exceeded applicable page limits and contained what the court characterized as conclusory and unconnected statements that were difficult to understand and unsupported by relevant authority. The court identified the citation of nonexistent cases as the most troubling deficiency and described it as a likely consequence of reliance on generative AI, observing that other courts had flagged the same issue.

The court explained that if an attorney had engaged in similar conduct, sanctions could include monetary penalties, orders to pay the opposing party’s fees incurred in responding to the filings, entry of an adverse judgment, or removal of authorization to practice law. In this case, however, the court concluded that monetary sanctions would be ineffective because the advocate appeared to be judgment proof and unlikely to be deterred.

In a footnote, the court referenced a prior decision in which it had found that the same advocate engaged in a “scorched earth” strategy of filing numerous Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) actions against Virginia school boards to impose litigation costs and pressure settlements. The court observed that the advocate continued to pursue the same strategy on behalf of the Skinger family and noted testimony at an April 2, 2025 evidentiary hearing in which a witness confirmed that the practice would continue.

Rather than impose sanctions, the court struck six pleadings that exceeded page limits, were not understandable even under the liberal standards afforded to pro se litigants, or contained misrepresentations of the law. It permitted the submission of replacement filings and issued a stern warning to the advocate and co-defendant against further improper conduct.

The decision reflects that reliance on generative artificial intelligence does not excuse violations of procedural rules or the submission of nonexistent legal authority.

The student had significant medical and physical disabilities, including a seizure disorder, cerebral palsy, and cortical visual impairment, and was nonverbal and nonambulatory. The student attended a private school, iBrain, in a classroom of no more than six students with at least one licensed special education teacher and an additional teacher or paraprofessional, and received music therapy and other related services.

The school district convened a Committee on Special Education (CSE) meeting on March 30, 2022. The proposed IEP recommended a 12:1:4 classroom with a licensed special education teacher and four additional teachers or paraprofessionals, along with approximately nineteen hours per week of related services in addition to instructional time. The district later issued a school location letter identifying a proposed placement. The parent reported that she attempted to contact the school to arrange a visit but received no response. She then notified the district of her intent to unilaterally place the student at iBrain for the 2022–2023 school year and subsequently filed a due process complaint seeking tuition reimbursement.

The impartial hearing officer ruled in favor of the parent, but the state review officer (SRO) reversed, concluding that the district’s proposed program offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The district court affirmed, emphasizing that deference was owed to the SRO as the final administrative decisionmaker and finding the decision well reasoned and supported by the record.

The court agreed with the SRO that the staffing ratio in the proposed public classroom was comparable to that provided at iBrain and credited testimony that the student would receive individualized instruction and attention through the assignment of a personal paraprofessional. It rejected the parent’s argument that the IEP was mathematically impossible to implement, noting testimony from the school’s interim principal that the instructional week totaled approximately thirty hours and that some related services could be delivered within the classroom without displacing core instruction. The court characterized the parent’s contrary assertions as speculative.

The court also upheld the SRO’s conclusion that the absence of music therapy in the proposed placement did not deny FAPE. Although the student had received music therapy at iBrain, the record showed that the proposed placement offered music instruction and that skills addressed through music therapy could be targeted through other related services. The court further rejected claims that the 12:1:4 classroom reflected predetermination, citing testimony that multiple ratios were considered during the CSE meeting and that the final recommendation was made collaboratively. It also found no denial of parental participation, noting that the IEP incorporated recommendations from both iBrain and the parent.

The decision reflects that challenges to the feasibility of an IEP must be grounded in record evidence rather than speculation, that related services may be delivered flexibly within the instructional day, and that removal or substitution of a particular related service does not necessarily deny FAPE where the student’s needs can be addressed through other components of the program.

The student was 21 years old and had received special education services from the District since 2008. He functioned at approximately a pre-kindergarten to first-grade level, could recite some letters of the alphabet and write his name, but could not read ordinary text and had limited conversational speech and daily living skills. His guardian challenged IEPs developed for the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years. Although the guardian largely prevailed in administrative proceedings, she challenged the adequacy of the remedies ordered.

With respect to ESY services, the hearing officer concluded that the IEPs were appropriate because the record did not show that the student had experienced significant regression. The court rejected that reasoning, explaining that the proper inquiry is whether a student is likely to regress in the absence of ESY services, not whether regression has already occurred. The court found that expert testimony demonstrated substantial jeopardy to the student’s progress without ESY, that the IEPs themselves reflected regression in number skills and stagnation in other areas, and that prior provision of ESY services supported the student’s continued need.

The court also addressed transition planning. The transition goals in both IEPs were largely unchanged and included activities such as researching vocational training requirements and assisted living communities using a computer and the internet. The court concluded that, even if the assessments informing the plans were adequate, the goals and services were not appropriately tailored to the student’s actual abilities. It found that the transition plans assumed skills the student had not mastered and should instead have focused on functional life skills such as reading signs, managing money, doing laundry, and telling time.

As to remedy, the court held that the student was entitled to compensatory education beyond the independent tutoring and speech-language services already awarded. It remanded the matter to the hearing officer to craft compensatory education that would place the student in the position he would have occupied but for the denial of ESY and appropriate transition services. The court directed the hearing officer to more clearly link any compensatory award to record evidence, including the duration of the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), the specific services withheld, and the progress the student could have made absent the violations.

The court also required reconsideration of whether a public placement remained appropriate in light of the additional deficiencies identified. While it was not improper to direct review of the IEP before making a placement decision, the court found that the hearing officer failed to adequately explain the basis for ordering or rejecting a private placement given the evidence in the record.

Taken together, the decision reflects that ESY determinations must focus on the likelihood of regression rather than proof of past regression, that transition services must be realistically aligned with a student’s functional abilities, and that compensatory education awards must be closely tied to record evidence addressing the impact of identified IDEA violations.

The parents requested classroom video recordings for approximately thirty days preceding the suspension of a special education teacher who participated in the restraint. The school board agreed to produce the recordings only if the footage were heavily altered, proposing to blur everything except a boxed image around the student. The board also declined to produce recordings from days when the student was not present. It argued that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) required protection of the identities of other students in the classroom and that even blurring faces would not sufficiently prevent identification.

The parents objected, asserting that the proposed blurring would prevent meaningful review of whether the teacher or other adults acted inappropriately toward other students while their child was present, and that the blurring process would delay production. The dispute was referred to a magistrate judge.

The court granted the parents’ motion to compel. Relying extensively on prior authority from Mills v. Cabell County Board of Education, 3:22-cv-00592, 2023 WL 4378179 (S.D. W. Va. July 6, 2023), the court concluded that the school board failed to meet its burden of resisting discovery. It held that the board had not shown the recordings were irrelevant, disproportionate, or unduly burdensome to produce. The court emphasized that FERPA protects only “education records” that are directly related to a student, and that video recordings showing other students merely incidentally in the background do not constitute education records for those students. The court further noted that a protective order was already in place and that the recordings were being produced solely for discovery, not for public dissemination.

Applying those principles, the court determined that the classroom recordings were directly relevant to the claims, including evaluation of the teacher’s and other adults’ conduct. The court also found that the temporal scope of the request was limited and that the existing protective order adequately addressed privacy concerns for non-party students.

The decision reflects that unredacted classroom video recordings may be discoverable where they are relevant to claims involving student treatment, that FERPA does not categorically bar production of such recordings when other students appear only incidentally, and that protective orders may sufficiently safeguard student privacy during discovery.

The plaintiffs alleged that the district consolidated services for students with intellectual disabilities at a small number of elementary schools and assigned students to those schools based primarily on IQ scores. Under the alleged policy, students with IQ scores above 70 or without a flat IQ profile were placed in one category, while students with IQ scores below 70 with flat profiles were placed in another. The complaint asserted that these assignments were made without individualized consideration of the students’ needs and without meaningful evaluation of whether the students could be educated in general education settings at neighborhood schools with appropriate supplementary aids and services.

Three students brought individual claims as well as class allegations. Each student was assigned to a hub school and pursued due process complaints alleging violations of IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA. The hearing officer and district court dismissed the claims on various grounds.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court construed the claims too narrowly. The court explained that the plaintiffs challenged a districtwide policy of categorically assigning students with intellectual disabilities to segregated placements without individualized determinations that such placements were appropriate. Those allegations, the court held, were sufficient to state plausible claims under IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504. The court emphasized that IDEA requires placement decisions to be based on the individualized education program (IEP) and to reflect consideration of a full range of supplementary aids and services that might permit education in the regular education environment.

Addressing the ADA and Section 504 claims, the court noted that the plaintiffs had asserted ADA claims during the IDEA administrative proceedings and that those claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As a result, dismissal for failure to exhaust was improper, and exhaustion of Section 504 claims would have been futile. The court further held that the plaintiffs adequately stated ADA and Section 504 claims by alleging that the district denied them the opportunity to receive educational services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and treated them unequally compared to nondisabled peers.

The decision reflects that categorical placement practices may be challenged where they displace individualized decisionmaking required by IDEA, that integration obligations under IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 are closely linked, and that policies assigning students to placements without individualized consideration may give rise to viable federal disability discrimination claims.