California OAH special education order · March 6, 2015

Order Denying Request to Reopen Case

OAH Case No. 2015010324 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH denied Student's request to reopen a settled case after Parent tried to rescind consent, because the agreement gave no right to rescind and OAH lacks authority to set aside settlements.

Denied Reopening cases and vacating settlements

Summary

Two days after the parties signed a March 3, 2015 settlement agreement that resolved all claims and led to dismissal of the case, Student asked OAH to reopen the case because Parent wanted to rescind her consent to the agreement. District opposed. OAH denied the request because Student did not show that anything in the agreement let Parent rescind it. OAH also found it has no legal authority to set aside or modify a settlement agreement; a party's remedy is a compliance complaint with the Superintendent of Public Instruction or a court action.

Why it matters

Once a settlement agreement is signed, a parent generally cannot undo it by going back to OAH, so families should be sure of the terms before signing. Disputes over a settlement belong with the California Department of Education or in court.

Key authority cited

Y.G. v. Riverside Unified School Dist. (C.D.Cal. 2011) 774 F.Supp.2d 1055
Porter v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 307 F.3d 1064
Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
Vaillette v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 680
Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33

Topics

settlement agreement reopen case rescission oah authority contract interpretation

Full text of the order

Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015010324 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

REOPEN CASE

HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On March 5, 2015, Student filed a request that the Office of Administrative Hearings reopen the above-titled case on the grounds that Parent was rescinding her consent to the March 3, 2015 Settlement Agreement entered between Parent and Hemet Unified School District, which resulted in the dismissal of Student’s case.

On March 5, 2015, District filed an opposition to Student’s request to reopen this matter and to set aside the Settlement Agreement.

Settlement agreements are interpreted using the same rules that apply to interpretation of contracts. (Vaillette v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 680, 686, citing Adams v. Johns-Manville Corp. (9th Cir. 1989) 876 F.2d 702, 704.) “Ordinarily, the words of the document are to be given their plain meaning and understood in their common sense;

the parties' expressed objective intent, not their unexpressed subjective intent, governs.” (Id.

at p. 686.) If a contract is ambiguous, i.e., susceptible to more than one interpretation, then extrinsic evidence may be used to interpret it. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 33, 37-40.) Even if a contract appears to be unambiguous on its face, a party may offer relevant extrinsic evidence to demonstrate that the contract contains a latent ambiguity; however, to demonstrate an ambiguity, the contract must be “reasonably susceptible” to the interpretation offered by the party introducing extrinsic evidence. (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 391, 393.)

The parties signed the Settlement Agreement on March 3, 2015, that resolved all claims in this matter. Student did not establish that anything in the agreement gave Parent the right to rescind to the agreement. Further, OAH lacks the legal authority to set aside a settlement agreement. Pursuant to Y.G. v. Riverside Unified School Dist. (C.D.Cal. 2011)

774 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1061-1062, OAH does not have the authority to modify a settlement agreement or determine whether it was a contract of adhesion. (See, Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) A party’s remedy to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement is either to file a compliance complaint with the Superintendent of Public Instruction or institute a court action. (See, Porter v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District (9th Cir. 2000) 307 F.3d 1064, 1074.) Accordingly, Student’s request to reopen this case is denied.