California OAH special education order · December 6, 2017
Order Denying Request to Reopen Case
OAH Case No. 2017080140, 2017090499 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Parent's request to reopen the case after she tried to rescind a signed settlement, because nothing in the agreement allowed rescission and OAH lacks authority to set aside settlements.
Summary
Parent, now representing Student after firing her attorney, asked OAH to reopen the consolidated case because she was rescinding her consent to the December 1, 2017 settlement agreement with Carlsbad Unified School District. District did not respond. OAH denied the request. It found nothing in the agreement gave Parent a right to rescind, and OAH has no authority to modify or set aside a settlement agreement. A party who wants to enforce or vacate a settlement must file a compliance complaint with the Superintendent of Public Instruction or go to court.
Why it matters
Once a settlement is signed, OAH will not undo it. Parents with second thoughts must use a state compliance complaint or a court action, so review settlement 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
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017080140 v.
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2017090499
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
v. REOPEN CASE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On December 6, 2017, Parent on behalf of 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 December 1, 2017 Settlement Agreement entered between Parent and Carlsbad Unified School District, which resulted in the dismissal of Student’s case.1 District has not filed 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 Parent and Student were represented by legal counsel, who signed the December 1, 2017 settlement agreement. OAH is considering the motion filed by Parent based on Parent’s representation that Parent terminated her attorney and is now representing Student.
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 December 1, 2017, that resolved all claims in this matter, subject to approval by the District’s Board. 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 or vacate 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 06, 2017
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings