Using the provided source, generate a concise summary:

SECTION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LV, RC, AD, NA, ADJ, YG, LO, AP, RLB, RD, and JYW, individually; and VSG, HR, CW, SS, MG, MS, ST, RZ, MC and JP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s, Civ. No. vs. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION; JOEL KLEIN, in his individual and official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City School District, SECTION DefendantSECTION s. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This class action action is brought by individual SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s LV, RC, AD, NA, ADJ, YG, LO, AP, RLB, RD, and JYW (“Indivi dual SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s”) and SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s VSG, HR, CW, SS, MG, MS, ST, RZ, MC and JP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated (“Class Representatives”), seeking to enforce SECTION DefendantSECTION s’ compliance with decisions, determinations, orders and statements of agreement and orders of Impartial Hearing Officers (“Impartial Hearing Orders”) entered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, et. seq. SECTION DefendantSECTION s’ failure to comply with these Impartial Hearing Orders is in violation of SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s’ rights under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; the IDEA; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (“Section 504”); and New York State Education Law §§ 4401 et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. 2. The acts and omissions complained of herein are indicative of the systemwide failure of SECTION DefendantSECTION s to establish a policy and procedure for the timely and effective enforcement of Impartial Hear ing Orders. 3. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s and putative class members seek to enforce Impartial Hearing Orders issued on their behalf and to obtain an order directing the SECTION DefendantSECTION s to develop an impartial due process compliance system to ensure that disabled children and their parents are not denied their right to a hearing system and a free appropriate public education. JURISDICTION 4. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that claims are asserted under the laws of the United States; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a ), in that claims are asserted under laws providing for the protection of civil rights; and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s’ pendent state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s also seek declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 2202. 5. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 6. If successful, SECTION PlaintiffSECTION s are entitled to costs and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 20 U.S.C. §1415. 2 PARTIES 7. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION LV is the mother of RV, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 8. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION VSG is the mother of KSG, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 9. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION RC is the mother of TC, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 10. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION AD is the mother of TD, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 11. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION NA is the mother of SA, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 12. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION ADJ is the mother of JDJ, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 13. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION YG is the mother of SG, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 14. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION LO is the mother of HG, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 15. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION AP is the mother of MP, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 16. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION RLB is the mother of RB, a child with a disability who resides in New York City. 3 17. SECTION PlaintiffSECTION RD is the mother of AD, a child 

Summary: 


In late 2003, several students with disabilities filed a lawsuit against the New York City Department of Education and the New York City School Board for failing to follow the orders of impartial hearings requiring them to compensate or fund tuition and services for the special education needs of the plaintiffs. In 2008 a settlement agreement was approved which included injunctive and compensatory relief.

