their administrative cross-appeal the IHO’s one-sentence note that Defendants did not discriminate against Child or deny Child access to general education activities. See Defendants’ Brief at p. 11. However, the record demonstrates that the SRO considered and set aside Plaintiffs’ service animal-related claim, noting that Plaintiffs’ about the district’s “cross-appeal allowance of the assistance dog on school property rests on legal claims arising under the ADA and Section 504 but not under the IDEA.” See SRO decision attached as Exhibit B to Defendant’s Brief at p. 20. Accordingly, Plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to their Title II claim because the parties placed that claim before the IHO and SRO. CONCLUSION The United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest for the consideration in deciding the pending Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed supra, the Court should deny Defendants’ motion. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT L. CAPERS United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman East Brooklyn, New York Horan Florio By: KELLY HORAN FLORIO Assistant United States Attorney (718) 254-6007 kelly.horan@usdoj.gov
their administrative cross-appeal the IHO’s one-sentence note that Defendants did not discriminate against Child or deny Child access to general education activities. See Defendants’ Brief at p. 11. However, the record demonstrates that the SRO considered and set aside Plaintiffs’ service animal-related claim, noting that Plaintiffs’ “cross-appeal about the district’s allowance of the assistance dog on school property rests on legal claims arising under the ADA and Section 504 but not under the IDEA.” See SRO decision attached as Exhibit B to Defendant’s Brief at p. 20. Accordingly, Plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to their Title II claim because the parties placed that claim before the IHO and SRO. CONCLUSION The United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest for the consideration in deciding the pending Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons discussed supra, the Court should deny Defendants’ motion. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 23, 2015 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT L. CAPERS United States Attorney Eastern District of New York 271 Cadman East Brooklyn, New York By: Horan Florio KELLY HORAN FLORIO Assistant United States Attorney (718) 254-6007 kelly.horan@usdoj.gov
sachem_soi.docx