California OAH special education order · April 5, 2016

Order Denying Student's Request to Set Aside Settlement Agreement; Granting District's Motion to Dismiss

OAH Case No. 2015110488 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH refused to set aside a signed settlement for claimed duress, mistake, and impossibility because it lacks that authority, and dismissed Student's case after the District's board approved the agreement.

Ruling Reopening cases and vacating settlements

Summary

Parents signed a settlement agreement with Carlsbad Unified on January 28, 2016, and later tried to rescind it, arguing they were coerced, that the agreement rested on a mistake, and that its terms could not be performed. OAH found nothing in the agreement gave Parents a right to rescind. It also held that, under Y.G. v. Riverside Unified, OAH has no authority to decide whether a settlement was obtained by duress, mistake, or impossibility; that challenge must be brought in court. Because the District's board approved the agreement on March 2, 2016, the only condition in the agreement was met, and OAH granted the District's motion to dismiss over Student's opposition.

Why it matters

Once a settlement is signed, parents generally cannot undo it at OAH. Claims that it was coerced, mistaken, or impossible to perform must be filed in court, so families should review terms carefully before signing.

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 rescission duress oah authority dismissal board approval

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. 2015110488 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S

REQUEST TO SET ASIDE

CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT;

DISTRICT. GRANTING DISTRICT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

On March 23, 2016, a status conference was held with Justin R. Shinnefield, attorney for Carlsbad Unified School District, and Eugene Long, attorney for Student regarding the status of the parties’ January 28, 2016 settlement agreement and dismissal of Student’s complaint. Before this status conference, the Office of Administrative Hearings had denied Student’s request, submitted by Parents, to set aside the January 28, 2016 settlement agreement in this matter, which the District’s Board subsequently approved on March 2,

2016. Because Student wishes to set aside the settlement agreement, Student would not be

submitting a request that this matter be dismissed. As a result of the status conference, OAH ordered briefing by the parties as to Student’s request to reopen this matter, and District’s request that OAH dismiss this matter. Parties timely submitted briefing.

Student’s Request to Reopen Matter On February 22, 2016, Parents, on behalf of Student, informed OAH that they were rescinding their consent to the January 28, 2016 Settlement Agreement entered between Parent and District. OAH denied Student’s request on March 1, 2016, to set aside the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement was subject to approval by District’s board, which was scheduled to occur on March 2, 2016.

Student’s March 28, 2016 brief requests that OAH set aside the settlement agreement because Parent’s were coerced into entering the agreement. Secondly, Student contends that the agreement was a product of mistake that obviates mutual consent. Finally, Student contends that the settlement agreement should be voided because its terms cannot be performed as written. District did not submit a response.

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 January 28, 2016, that resolved all claims in this matter. Student did not establish that anything in the agreement gave Parents the right to rescind to the agreement. As to Student’s contention that OAH should set aside the agreement because it was the product of duress and mistake, plus impossibility of implementation, 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 obtained by duress, mistake or impossibility. (See, Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) A party’s remedy to set aside the terms of a settlement agreement is to 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 set aside the settlement agreement is denied.

District’s Request that OAH Dismiss Student’s Case District moved on March 28, 2016, that OAH dismiss Student’s complaint as District’s board approved of the settlement agreement, which Student filed an opposition brief on April 1, 2016. Incorporating the legal discussion above as to interpretation of settlement agreements, District established that Parents signed a Settlement Agreement on January 28, 2016, subject to approval by District’s board, which occurred on March 2, 2016.

Nothing in the agreement gave Parents the right to rescind to the agreement, as the only condition subsequent was the approval of the agreement by the District’s board. Finally, OAH does not have jurisdiction to set aside the agreement. Accordingly, District’s motion that this matter be dismissed is granted, and April 6, 2016 status conference vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED

DATE: April 5, 2016

PETER PAUL CASTILLO

Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings