California OAH special education order · September 18, 2017
Order Denying Request to Reopen Case
OAH Case No. 2017081241 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH denied Parent's request to reopen a mediation-only case settled and dismissed, because OAH cannot set aside settlement agreements and has no jurisdiction over a dismissed matter.
Summary
District filed a mediation-only complaint, and the parties signed a settlement agreement at mediation on September 12, 2017. The case was dismissed three days later. Student then asked OAH to reopen the case because Parent felt pressured by her advocate to sign and no longer agreed with the terms. OAH denied the request: nothing in the agreement gave Parent a right to rescind, OAH has no authority to set aside or modify a settlement, and it has no jurisdiction over a dismissed case.
Why it matters
Once a mediated settlement is signed and the case is dismissed, OAH will not undo it, even if a parent says they felt pressured. A parent with concerns about a settlement must file a compliance complaint with the Superintendent of Public Instruction or go to court, so parents should be sure of the terms 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 Matter of:
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2017081241
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
v. REOPEN CASE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
District filed a mediation only complaint in the above-titled case on August 25, 2017.
The parties entered into a written settlement agreement during mediation on September 12,
2017. A copy of the signed agreement was filed with OAH on September 12, 2017 and the
case was dismissed on September 15, 2017.
On September 15, 2017, Student filed a request that the Office of Administrative Hearings reopen the above-titled case. Parent seeks to reopen the case on the grounds that she felt pressured by her advocate to sign the agreement during mediation and she no longer agreed to the terms of the 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 that resolved all claims in this matter on September 12, 2017. Student did not establish that anything in the agreement gave Parent the right to rescind the agreement. Further, OAH lacks the legal authority to set aside a settlement agreement. Pursuant to Y.G. v. Riverside Unified School District (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).) OAH does not have jurisdiction over a matter that has been dismissed. A party’s remedy concerning 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: September 18, 2017
MARIAN H. TULLY
Acting Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings