MARPLE NEWTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT v. S.Z.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARPLE NEWTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	: 	CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff, 	:
:
v. 	:
:
S.Z., as parent and natural guardian of A.B., 	:
Defendant. 	: 	NO. 26-6426
MEMORANDUM
KENNEY, J. 	October 8, 2026
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Declaratory
Relief, and/or Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11). 	Plaintiff Marple Newtown School District
(the “Plaintiff”) seeks to stay the Hearing Officer’s July 2, 2026 Order (the “Hearing Officer’s
Order”) (ECF No. 1-4) directing that Defendant S.Z.’s (the “Defendant’s”) minor child, A.B. (the
“Student”), return to the life-skills classroom located in the Marple Newtown School District’s
(the “School District’s”) Russell Elementary School (“Russell Elementary”) if the new Chester
County Intermediate Unit (“CCIU”) location in Malvern, Pennsylvania is not open by September
15, 2026. ECF No. 11. On September 15, 2026, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Temporary Restraining Order. See ECF Nos. 12–13. On October 6, 2026, the Court conducted a
hearing on this matter (the “October 6 hearing”) (ECF No. 27). For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED. 	The Court will
PRELIMINARILY ENJOIN Defendant from implementing or enforcing the Hearing Officer’s
Order.
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 10

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
The School District is located within Delaware County, and the Student lives within the
School District’s geographic borders. 	The Student qualifies for special education under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). See ECF No.
11-1 ¶ 4. 	From enrollment in 2021 until early 2025, the Student attended his neighborhood
elementary school in the School District, Russell Elementary. 	Id. ¶ 7. 	His peers at Russell
Elementary also had disabilities. 	Id. 	Throughout his time at Russell Elementary, the Student
exhibited concerning behavior including aggression towards his peers and school staff members.
Id. ¶¶ 8–9; ECF No. 1-4 ¶ 49. Since January 2025, the Student has attended the CCIU program
at a facility in Coatesville. 	ECF No. 11-1 ¶ 17. 	The Student has had success with the CCIU
program and particularly with access to a dedicated behavior analyst. ECF No. 1-4 ¶¶ 43, 57–65.
On July 2, 2026, Hearing Officer Michael J. McElligot issued an Order regarding the
Student’s pendent placement for the 2026–2027 school year. ECF No. 1-4. The Order determined
that the Student’s “placement for the 2026–2027 school year shall be at the intermediate unit
(“IU”) location which, as described on this record, is approximately 30 minutes from the student’s
home and which will be newly-opened in the 2026–2027 school year.” Id. at 26. However, later
in the Order, the Hearing Officer added that:
If the newly-opened IU placement is unavailable to the student
because the newly-opened IU placement ultimately has not been
opened, or is not ready for occupancy as of September 15, 2026 . . .
the student’s educational placement shall be at the District’s life-
skills classroom.
Id. at 27.
On August 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 	The Complaint serves as an appeal of the administrative
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 10

3
proceeding held on July 2, 2026 by the Hearing Officer. 	Plaintiff is only appealing a specific
instruction from the Hearing Officer’s Order: 	that the Student return to Russell Elementary on
September 15, 2026 if the CCIU Malvern facility is not open by that time. ECF No. 1 at 14. In
the Complaint, Plaintiff’s request for relief asked the Court to “[r]everse the Hearing Officer’s
Order only with regard to the September 15th deadline” and to “[o]rder that [the] Student remain
at his CCIU Coatesville program until the Malvern location is open[.]” 	Id. 	On September 14,
2026, as the CCIU Malvern location was not ready, Plaintiff moved for a Temporary Restraining
Order, Declaratory Relief, and/or Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF
No. 11) sought for the Court to stay the Hearing Officer’s July 2, 2026 Order and to order that the
Student remain at the Coatesville CCIU facility. ECF No. 11-1 at 17. On September 15, 2026,
this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 13) until a
hearing could be held. 	On October 6, 2026, a hearing was held, and the Court heard from
Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel on the Student’s pendent placement. 	ECF No. 27.
After full briefing and the October 6 hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is
now before the Court.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, parties can move for the entry of a preliminary
injunction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. For the Court to enter a preliminary injunction, the moving
party must show that “(1) [it] will likely succeed on the merits, (2) [it] will likely suffer irreparable
injury without an injunction, (3) the balance of equities favors [it], and (4) an injunction serves the
public interest.” Schrader v. Dist. Att’y of York Cnty., 74 F.4th 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2023) (citing
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 10

4
In evaluating the four Winter factors to determine whether to grant a preliminary
injunction, the Third Circuit has found that the Court must first consider whether the movant meets
the first two factors: the “gateway factors.” Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173, 179 (3d
Cir. 2017), as amended (June 26, 2017). That is, a movant must first “demonstrate that it can win
on the merits” and that “it is more likely than not to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief.” Id.; see also Holland v. Rosen, 895 F.3d 272, 286 (3d Cir. 2018) (“The first
two factors are prerequisites for a movant to prevail”). 	If those two gateway factors are
demonstrated, then the Court “considers the remaining two factors and determines in its sound
discretion if all four factors, taken together, balance in favor of granting the requested preliminary
relief.” Reilly, 858 F.3d at 179. Upon consideration of the arguments raised by both parties at the
October 6 hearing, and the parties’ briefing, the Court finds that all four factors continue to weigh
in favor of granting Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 11).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Regarding the first gateway factor, Plaintiff has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on
the merits regarding its appeal of the Hearing Officer’s Order that the Student return to Russell
Elementary if the Malvern CCIU facility is not open by September 15, 2026. 	In this case, the
Court is performing an appellate review of the Hearing Officer’s Order. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).
The Court has elected not to open the factual record (see ECF No. 22) and to defer to the record
as established in the administrative proceedings below. See Drinker v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 888 F.
Supp. 674, 677 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (citing Bernardsville Bd. of Educ. v. J.H., 42 F.3d 149, 161 (3d
Cir. 1994)). The Court, however, reviews de novo the legal question of the Student’s placement
to determine the likely success of Plaintiff’s appeal. See, e.g., Wilburn v. Dalton, 832 F. Supp 943,
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 4 of 10

5
945 (E.D. Pa. 1993); R.S. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., No. 22-3478, 2024 WL 992174, at *4 (E.D.
Pa. Mar. 6, 2024).
Although the Hearing Officer’s Order dictates that the Student should return to Russell
Elementary if the new facility is not ready by September 15, 2026, the report contains no factual
findings to support this conclusion. See ECF No. 1-4 ¶¶ 49–53. Instead, educators from both the
district and CCIU testified that the Student continues to require specialized placement in order to
continue his education. 	Id. ¶¶ 52–53. 	The record established in previous administrative
proceedings also supports a finding that the Student cannot return to Russell Elementary. See ECF
No. 11-2 at 8–11. There has been no showing that the life-skills classroom at Russell Elementary
can provide an appropriate educational environment for the Student, as required under the IDEA.
Id. ¶¶ 47–50, 52; see also S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Newark, 336 F.3d 260, 272
(3d Cir. 2003).
The Hearing Officer, further, offered no explanation as to why the Student should return
to Russell Elementary if the Malvern CCIU location was not opened by September 15, 2026. ECF
No. 1-4 at 24–28. To the contrary, the Hearing Officer found that, while it was a “close call,” the
evidence “weigh[ed] in favor—at least in the short-term—of continuing the student’s placement
at the IU.” Id. at 25. The Court understands that the Hearing Officer took seriously the difficulties
faced by the Defendant and the Student in having the CCIU facility an hour away in Coatesville,
as discussed at the October 6 hearing. October 6, 2026 Hr’g Tr. at 11:21–12:8.1 However, the
Court considers from the established record that the Student’s placement must be at an
intermediate unit (“IU”) location. ECF No. 1-4 at 26. Until the Malvern location is ready in early
1 The Hearing Transcript from the October 6 hearing is not yet published to the Docket. 	The
transcript is available to the parties.
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 5 of 10

6
November, as represented by Plaintiff’s counsel, the record supports the Student continuing at the
Coatesville CCIU facility. 	October 6, 2026 Hr’g Tr. at 8:18–19; see ECF No. 1-4 ¶¶ 47–53.
Therefore, the Court finds it is likely that Plaintiff is to succeed on the merits because the findings
of the July 2026 administrative hearing and the previous administrative record established and
supported placement at a CCIU facility.2 Given that record, nothing has changed. The Hearing
Officer’s direction to place the child in Russell Elementary should the new CCIU building not be
finished is an add-on that is not supported by the very record the Hearing Officer developed and
the other conclusions the Hearing Officer reached. This, therefore, rendered the direction arbitrary,
capricious, and inconsistent with his own fact-based conclusions. The Court assumes the officer
was using this add-on as a practical spur to get Plaintiff to act with alacrity in moving the child to
the new location. However, the add-on gives no instruction as to how Russell Elementary was to
put in place the administrative mechanics needed to establish the foundation to educate the child
pursuant to all the requirements of the law.
Regarding the second gateway factor, Plaintiff has shown that even temporary placement
of the Student at Russell Elementary would cause it to suffer irreparable harm. 	At the
administrative hearing on February 28, 2025, the Hearing Officer found that “maintaining the
Student’s placement at the Elementary School creates a substantial likelihood of injury to the
Student or to others . . . The record establishes that injuries occurred at least daily, and often many
times per day[.]” 	ECF No.11-2 at 19–20 (emphasis added). 	In fact, the Student’s behavioral
history includes over 2,700 “aggressive behavior incidents” that occurred from the start of the
2024–2025 school year through January 2025. Id. at 6. Further, the Student’s own educational
progress would be irreparably harmed by being abruptly removed from his current CCIU program.
2 Until the Malvern location is open, this placement is at the Coatesville CCIU facility.
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 6 of 10

7
ECF No. 1-4 ¶ 61. The Hearing Officer’s findings indicate that the return to Russell Elementary
would jeopardize the Student’s progress because he has made notable progress at the CCIU facility
after four years without progress at Russell Elementary. Id. ¶¶ 61–65. While the Court recognizes
that the Student has made significant progress since the February 2025 hearing, the record suggests
that this was due to the Student’s placement at the CCIU facility. 	Id. 	The record, thus, makes
clear that the Student’s return to Russell Elementary will “more likely than not” cause the Plaintiff
to suffer irreparable harm because both the Student and the other students currently learning at
Russell Elementary may be harmed due to the documented evidence of the Student’s history of
“aggressive behavior incidents.” See Reilly, 858 F.3d at 179; ECF No.11-2 at 6. 	Such harm is
imminent, as the implementation of the Hearing Officer’s Order would result in the immediate
return of the Student to Russell Elementary. To be clear, this does not foreclose future placement
at Russell Elementary. Indeed, the Hearing Officer alluded to an avenue for the Student’s return.
Counsel for the Defendant has also indicated there is a new IEP, not part of the Hearing Officer’s
record, that points to such a pathway forward for the Student. October 6, 2026 Hr’g Tr. at 13:6–
7. But that is for a new day. The Hearing Officer made clear, that the time for the child’s return
to a regular school environment, although the ultimate goal, is not now nor supported by the record
before the Court in deciding this Motion.
Having met the first two so-called “gateway” Winter factors, the Court may now consider
the remaining Winter factors and whether all four factors, taken together, point towards the
necessity of preliminary relief. See Reilly, 858 F.3d at 178–79. The third factor requires the Court
to consider whether the balance of equities favors a preliminary injunction. 	See Bradley v.
Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172, 1175 (3d Cir. 1990) (citation omitted); see also Campbell
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 7 of 10

8
Soup Co. v. ConAgra, Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 90–91 (3d Cir. 1992). With regard to the third Winter
factor, the Court finds that the balance of the equities favors a preliminary injunction in this case.
Here, the Student’s interests are best protected by a preliminary injunction because the
CCIU program has allowed the Student to make “academic and behavioral progress across most
IEP goals, and the student’s behaviors . . . showed dramatic improvement.” ECF No. 11-2 at 49.
After being placed at the CCIU facility the Student “exhibited significant reductions in all
behaviors targeted through the PBSP (physical contact, aggression, [etc.]).” ECF No. 1-4 ¶ 61.
Yet, “the [S]tudent still engages in behavior which, at times, requires restraint,” indicating that he
will still benefit from CCIU placement.
As represented by Defendant’s counsel at the October 6 hearing, Defendant is interested in
having the Student return to Russell Elementary because of the hour-long transportation time and
relative distance from Defendant’s home to the Coatesville CCIU facility. October 6, 2026 Hr’g
Tr. at 11:21–12:8. As a result of the distance, Defendant’s counsel represented that Defendant is
unable to participate in the Student’s education at the Coatesville CCIU facility due to
transportation difficulties. 	Id. at 12:5–6. 	The Defendant’s counsel further represented that
Defendant is unable to promptly pick up the Student in the event of an emergency or illness.
October 6, 2026 Hr’g Tr. at 11:24–12:4. Additionally, counsel stated that being in transit for two
hours every day is a notable difficulty not only for Defendant, but for the Student. Id. at 11:21–
24. The Court takes these concerns quite seriously.
However, they must be considered in the greater context that, based on the Plaintiff’s
counsel’s representation, the Malvern CCIU facility will be open in just one month’s time. Once
the Student is moved to the Malvern CCIU facility, the hardship on both Defendant and the Student
caused by the distance between the facility and the Student’s home will be substantially
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 8 of 10

9
diminished. 	As discussed supra, the benefits that the Student receives from an education
placement in the CCIU facility in the long-term, and the potential harm to the Student’s educational
progress by repeated, abrupt changes to his placement outweigh the difficulties related to the
Student’s considerable transportation time to and from school that will be faced for only the next
month. See ECF No. 11-2. Accordingly, the balance of equities favors granting relief in this case.
Lastly, with regard to the final Winter factor, the Court finds that the public interest favors
the preliminary injunction so that all students within the School District can receive a proper
education. See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 187–204 (1982). As discussed above, the
Hearing Officer’s findings suggest that placement within the CCIU facility is best for the Student
to continue to make educational progress. ECF No. 1-4 ¶¶ 61–65; see also ECF No. 11-2 at 24–
25. 	The Hearing Officer’s findings also show that there is a significant risk that the Student’s
return to the life skills classroom at Russell Elementary will disrupt the education of the other
students currently learning at Russell Elementary. ECF No. 1-4 ¶¶ 47–50; see also ECF No. 11-2
¶¶ 31–32.
Considering these factors in their totality, the record established by the Hearing Officer as
to the Student’s educational history, and the fact that the CCIU Malvern facility will shortly open,
the Court finds that a preliminary injunction is warranted in this case. 	Plaintiff has shown a
likelihood of success on the merits and that it will more likely than not suffer an imminent,
irreparable harm if the Student is relocated to Russell Elementary. While the Defendant and the
Student have understandably faced hardships with the CCIU Coatesville placement, the benefits
of this placement to the Student outweigh the represented hardships. Additionally, many of the
Defendant’s hardships will be mitigated by the Student’s relocation to the CCIU facility in
Malvern on November 2, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 9 of 10

10
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 11). The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has demonstrated: (1) likely success
on the merits of its limited appeal regarding the September 15, 2026 deadline; (2) that irreparable
is more likely than not to occur if the Student is placed at Russell Elementary; (3) that the balance
of the equities supports the Student’s placement at the Coatesville CCIU facility until the Malvern
CCIU facility opens; and (4) this decision supports the public interest.
Accordingly, the Court PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS the Hearing Officer’s July 2, 2026
Order, directing the Student to return to the life-skills classroom at Russell Elementary School,
from taking effect pending further order of this Court or upon agreement of the Parties. It is further
ORDERED that the Student’s pendent placement is the special placement operated by the CCIU
currently located in Coatesville, Pennsylvania until the Malvern CCIU facility is open. 	On or
about November 2, 2026, when the Malvern CCIU facility is opened, the Student shall be
TRANSFERRED to continue his education at the Malvern CCIU facility. An appropriate Order
will follow.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Chad F. Kenney
CHAD F. KENNEY, JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-06426-CFK Document 28 Filed 10/08/26 Page 10 of 10