United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON PENDING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge
Shkelqesa Dervishi, proceeding In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”), brought this action on behalf of her
minor son, T.D., to appeal the decision of a due process
administrative hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20
U.S.C. § 1415. [ECF No. 7]. The Court entered judgment
in favor of Defendant and Plaintiff appealed. [ECF Nos. 90
& 91]. The Second Circuit vacated the Court's
judgment in part and remanded this matter for further
proceedings. [Dkt. 93].
remand, the Court entered judgment on behalf of Plaintiff in
the amount of $30, 222.50 for stay-put services, $6, 790.37
for stay-put transportation, and interest under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1961(a). [ECF No.155]. Plaintiff filed an appeal of
the amount awarded by the Court's judgment. [ECF No.
156]. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to deposit monies
in the amount of $37, 437.86 into the Court's registry
pursuant to Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. [ECF No. 159]. By order dated August 30,
2019, the Court denied Defendant's motion. [ECF No. 172].
Defendant has filed a motion for reconsideration. [ECF. No.
7(c) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure of the District of
Connecticut authorizes motions for reconsideration.
“The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and
reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked-matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995).
motion to deposit funds, Defendant represented that it had
proposed this payment to Plaintiff in exchange for a
satisfaction of judgment. [ECF. No. 159-1 at 4]. Defendant
stated that the Stamford Board of Education sought to resolve
this matter by paying the amount established by the judgment.
Id. Defendant also filed a motion for relief from
judgment. [ECF No. 160].
objected to Defendant's motions on the ground that she
was not satisfied with the Court's judgment and had
appealed. [ECF No. 168]. The Court denied Defendant's
motion to deposit funds and motion for relief from judgment
in light of Plaintiff's appeal of the amount awarded by
the judgment. [ECF No. 172 at 2). The Court stated that
Defendant could “provide payment to Plaintiff, as
necessary, and obtain relief from judgment at the conclusion
of this action, which includes the appeal process and any
resolution in the event of a remand to this Court.”
motion for reconsideration, Defendant clarifies that it is
not seeking a satisfaction of judgment by depositing monies
into the Court. [ECF Nos. 173 & 181]. Plaintiff objects
to the motion for reconsideration on grounds that there is no
clear error of law and her concern that Defendant is
attempting to increase the time of appeal [ECF Nos. 179 &
180 at 4]. The Court agrees that there is no clear error of
law at issue. However, the Court will GRANT the motion for
reconsideration due to Defendant's clarification that
“[d]espite its prior overtures[, ] the Board does not
intend to receive a satisfaction of judgment in exchange for
its payment in accordance with Rule 67.” [ECF No. 181
permits funds to be deposited into the Court for safekeeping
“pending the resolution of a legal dispute, ” but
it does not alter the “legal duties of the
parties.” Geismann v. ZocDoc, Inc., 909 F.3d
534, 541 (2d Cir. 2018). Here, Defendant seeks to deposit the
funds into an interest-bearing account pending resolution of
Plaintiff's appeal “so that the board need not hold
it.” Id. Plaintiff's appeal will not be
delayed by permitting Defendant to deposit such funds into
the Court registry.
motion for reconsideration is GRANTED [ECF No. 173]; and the
Court's Order dated August 30, 2019 is VACATED [ECF No.
to 28 U.S.C. § 2045 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
67, Defendant Stamford Board of Education may deposit the
amount of $37, 437.86, including any interest thereon, into
the registry for the Court pending the appeal of this
receipt of the check, the Clerk of Court shall deposit the
funds into The United States Treasury to be invested in The
Court Registry Investment System (CRIS), the investment
management tool of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts. The funds shall be placed in an
interest-bearing account in the name of "Clerk of Court
of the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, Civil Action No. 3:11cv1018 (MPS).
Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall
administer the funds and charge fees under the Court Registry
Investment System (CRIS), in accordance with this Court's
Order Regarding Deposit and Investment of Registry Funds
entered December 1, 2016. The funds deposited with The Court
Registry Investment System shall remain on deposit until
further order of the Court.