California OAH special education order · October 27, 2015
Order Denying Student's Motion to Determine Jurisdiction and Dismiss Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015100314 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH denied Student's motion to dismiss his own complaint as outside OAH jurisdiction because whether a binding settlement agreement even existed was a disputed factual question, not a facially jurisdictional one.
This case went to decision
Student v. Torrance Unified School District: Torrance Unified prevails: Parent's signed acceptance of a one-page settlement offer letter did not create an enforceable settlement agreement. (2016)
Summary
Student filed a complaint alleging only that District breached a settlement agreement formed when Parent accepted District's August 20, 2015 "offer to settle," and sought $49,720 in damages. Student then moved OAH to find it lacked jurisdiction and dismiss the complaint so Student could show he had exhausted administrative remedies before pursuing a breach of contract claim. District opposed, arguing no settlement agreement had been reached at a resolution session or mediation. OAH denied the motion. It found that Student gave no copy of the agreement and no declaration, so deciding whether a binding agreement existed, and whether any failure to implement it denied a free appropriate public education, required factual findings on the merits rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Why it matters
OAH generally will not hear pure breach-of-settlement claims, but it will only dismiss claims that are clearly outside its jurisdiction on their face. A party who wants a quick jurisdictional dismissal, including to show exhaustion, should support the motion with the actual agreement or a declaration, because a dispute over whether an agreement exists will go forward to hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
- Pedraza v. Alameda Unified Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2007) 2007 WL 949603
- Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 967 F.2d 1298
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 4600 et seq.
Topics
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. 2015100314 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO DETERMINE
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL JURISDICTION AND DISMISS
DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On October 5, 2015, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint), naming Torrance Unified School District.
On October 13, 2015, Student filed a Motion Determine Jurisdiction, which when read in its entirety, represents a Motion to Dismiss Student’s complaint as outside the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings.
On, October 16, 2015, District filed an opposition to Student’s motion. On October 21, 2015, Student filed a response to District’s opposition.
APPLICABLE LAW
Parents have the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) OAH has jurisdiction to hear due process claims arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir.
2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029 [hereafter Wyner].)
This limited jurisdiction does not include jurisdiction over claims alleging a school district’s failure to comply with a settlement agreement. (Id. at p. 1030.) In Wyner, during the course of a due process hearing the parties reached a settlement agreement in which the district agreed to provide certain services. The hearing officer ordered the parties to abide by the terms of the agreement. Two years later, the student initiated another due process hearing, and raised, inter alia, six issues as to the school district’s alleged failure to comply with the earlier settlement agreement. The California Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO), OAH’s predecessor in hearing IDEA due process cases, found that the issues pertaining to compliance with the earlier order were beyond its jurisdiction. This ruling was upheld on appeal. The Wyner court held that “the proper avenue to enforce SEHO orders”
was the California Department of Education’s compliance complaint procedure (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 4600, et. seq.), and that “a subsequent due process hearing was not available to address . . . alleged noncompliance with the settlement agreement and SEHO order in a prior due process hearing.” (Wyner, supra, 223 F.3d at p. 1030.)
In Pedraza v. Alameda Unified Sch. Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2007, No. C 05-04977 VRW)
2007 WL 949603, the District Court held that OAH has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims alleging denial of a free appropriate public education as a result of a violation of a mediated settlement agreement, as opposed to “merely a breach” of the mediated settlement agreement that should be addressed by the California Department of Education’s compliance complaint procedure.
DISCUSSION
Student raises only one claim against District in his complaint, specifically, whether District breached a settlement agreement when District failed to implement the terms of its “offer to settle” which was accepted by Student on August 20, 2015. As remedy for this alleged breach of settlement agreement, Student seeks monetary damages in the amount of $49,720.00.
In his complaint, Student contends that enforcement of a settlement agreement is outside of OAH jurisdiction. Student alleges that, “because the settlement agreement between the parties arose out of a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), (20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq.), Student brings this action in order to exhaust its administrative remedies with regard to its breach of contract claim against District.”
District contends no settlement agreement was reached at a resolution session or at mediation. Further, District claims the underlying issue is whether an enforceable agreement exists, and if so, whether a breach occurred, and then if so, whether OAH can enforce the terms of the agreement.
District argues that exhaustion of administrative remedies under the IDEA is designed to afford full exploration of technical educational issues, further development of a complete factual records, and promote judicial efficiency. (Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., (9th Cir.
1992) 967 F.2d 1298.)
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc…..), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure.
Student’s complaint assert the terms of District’s “offer to settle” constituted valid consideration, and taken together with Parent’s subsequent acceptance of District’s offer, created a binding contract between the parties. Student, however, has not provided a copy of the alleged settlement agreement, nor has he submitted a declaration with his motion to verify the existence of a written settlement agreement. Student’s complaint and motion presuppose a valid settlement agreement. District disagrees. Instead, the dispute requires a factual determination of whether a binding settlement agreement exists, and if such exists whether District’s failure to implement denied Student a free appropriate public education.
As such Student’s motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
ORDER
Student’s Motion to Determine Jurisdiction and dismiss Student’s complaint is denied. The matter shall proceed as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 27, 2015
/S/
JUDITH PASEWARK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings