MANHATTAN (LN) — U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett on Friday denied a special-education parent's motion for a temporary restraining order against the New York City Department of Education, ruling that the plaintiff failed to address the required preliminary-injunction factors and provided insufficient evidence that a school closure was caused by unpaid tuition.
Garnett denied the motion filed by R.L., who sought immediate payment for her child's pendency services at iBrain, a provider that the plaintiff claimed was closing due to delayed payments.
The plaintiff relied on an email from iBrain stating the school would be closed on April 16 and 17 due to "staffing challenges related to delays in payments from the Department of Education." She also submitted a declaration from attorney Jeffrey Arlen Spinner of Liberty & Freedom Legal Group, Ltd., who affirmed the authenticity of two similar emails from iBrain to parents.
Garnett noted that Spinner's declaration did not state what knowledge he had about iBrain's finances or whether the school had reopened since the motion was filed.
"Injunctive relief, in any context, is 'an extraordinary remedy' that is 'never awarded as of right,'" Garnett wrote, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
To obtain such relief, a plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that the injunction is interest. Garnett emphasized that irreparable harm is the "single most important prerequisite" for a preliminary injunction.
"Plaintiff has entirely failed to brief the Winter factors," Garnett wrote. "And, although a likelihood of irreparable harm is the single most important perquisite to the issuance of a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff has failed to comprehensively or persuasively argue that this case meets that prerequisite."
Even assuming the missed school days constituted irreparable harm, Garnett found the evidence insufficient to link the closure to the DOE's payments. She noted it was unclear how long the closure would last and that the emails were unsupported hearsay.
"Besides the unsupported hearsay statements presented, the Court has no basis to conclude iBrain is closed due to delayed payments from DOE," Garnett wrote.
Garnett also pointed out that the plaintiff did not explain how funding a single student's pendency would solve the alleged problem of iBrain's inability to pay more than 200 staff members and past-due rent.
The judge noted that the plaintiff had filed similar emergency motions in several other cases, including Abreu v. Aviles-Ramos, Bruckauf v. Aviles-Ramos, Juca v. Aviles-Ramos, and Ramos v. Samuels.
Garnett referenced an April 20 order by U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman in Ramos v. Samuels, which ordered the plaintiff in that case to meet and confer with the DOE and file a letter regarding whether a referral to U.S. District Judge Cave for discovery would facilitate judicial economy.
Garnett ordered the parties to file a joint status letter by Friday, April 24, 2026, providing their views on whether a referral to Judge Cave for discovery would facilitate judicial economy, as well as next steps in the matter.
The court will issue an order addressing the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction after receiving the status letter.