In a memo-endorsed order dated April 22, 2026, Failla denied the parents' request for an indicative ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 "for substantially the reasons set forth in Defendants' response." She added that "the Court finds persuasive the reasons provided by Judge Lewis J. Liman for denying similar emergency relief" in a parallel iBrain matter, Ramos v. Samuels, No. 26 Civ. 3128 (LJL).
Rule 62.1 lets a district court tell a circuit court whether it would grant a motion that is otherwise outside its jurisdiction because of a pending appeal. According to the city's April 22 opposition letter from Assistant Corporation Counsel Kimberly L. Roc, the parents' filing was the second indicative-ruling motion in the case and the "fifth variation of a motion seeking some form of expedited relief." The court had already denied an earlier indicative-ruling request sua sponte after, as the city quoted from a prior order, it had "convened a lengthy telephonic hearing that made plain the evidentiary deficiencies in Plaintiffs' motion, and it thereafter denied the requested relief."
The parents argued that iBrain — which is not a party to the case — faces closure because the New York City Department of Education has not made required pendency payments, and they urged the court to issue an indicative ruling that would clear the way for emergency relief on remand. The city countered that those allegations are speculative and evidence-light, and that the Department of Education "is simply not responsible for iBrain's financial viability."
Central to the city's evidentiary attack was the email plaintiffs submitted from iBrain Chief Operating Officer Daniel Sebbag, purportedly documenting the school's distress. After the court directed plaintiffs to produce actual communications between iBrain and parents and between iBrain and the DOE, plaintiffs filed three emails. The city told Failla that "None of the emails were communications between iBrain and parents." Instead, the city wrote, "each reflects a message sent from Daniel Sebbag to himself, and thus does not satisfy the Court's requirement of producing actual communications."
The city also leaned on Failla's own remarks from a January 2024 hearing in Grullon v. Banks, another iBrain pendency dispute. From the bench, Failla had told plaintiffs' counsel: "I don't think it's DOE's obligation to avert a close down of the school." She added: "The children can be educated elsewhere, sir." As to the school's own viability, Failla said: "It is not my place to keep them afloat. It is not my place to shut them down."
The Liman ruling Failla flagged came in Ramos v. Samuels, where the Southern District judge denied a TRO sought by another iBrain parent. As the city quoted Liman, "There is no evidence what th[e] staffing limitations are, what caused them, how long they are likely to last or if they will recur, and how they are affecting the school."
Although Failla rejected the indicative ruling, she sided with the city's request for "limited discovery into iBRAIN's financial condition." She noted that similar discovery is ongoing in Mendez v. Aviles Ramos, No. 25 Civ. 5746 (CM) (SLC), and that Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered comparable financial production in Abreu v. Aviles-Ramos, 25-cv-5499 (RA). Failla "encourages the parties to meet and confer and submit a letter regarding the appropriateness and contours of such discovery here." The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Docket No. 68.