the idea specifically section twenty one section fourteen fifteen l requires exhaustion prior to pursuing section five zero four and title two eighty eight claims when the plaintiff is seeking relief th nothing in the ideate the complaint sought damages yes and that has not been considered by the district court to to my knowledge based on their decision by judge m the united states district court of nevada that was not mentioned and is that the only thing that's on the table now you're completely satisfied with what the hearing officer did what the school district did  the terms of the settlement that was reached well that's the settlement reached by district council and myself was it was a good resolution of the idea claims there are things that factually happened subsequent to that settlement of those anything other than monetary do you currently know one or the other things you just are other things what are you referring to although i was referring to there were some some things factually that happened relative to the terms of the settlement agreement of the idea claims that's not a part of so nothing in the idea so so there's no need to go back to the hearing officer no you're right there's no basis to go back to the hearing officer and tell him or for the things that need to be so if i understand that the question that we're required to answer is simply whether mediation that is not followed by a due process hearing counts as exhaustion under the statute is but what we are seeking is vindication of rights that are related what's your response to judge ravers question about the legal issue that's in front of us whether in the absence of a hearing in a final resolution in order my hearing officer your client has exhausted her administer the room of these yes that's our position your honor to tell us why because we settled everything under that statute and chain all relief that we could obtain under that statute namely the idea there was nothing more to go forward what we're seeking court the educational the faith coins why tell us why that's you've exhausted your administrative when you conceded exhaustion is a requirement correct correct tell us why what has been done equals exhaustion well the stepping back the idea aid has built in and statutory framework the resolution period and asian so it's promoting settlement at all phases we let me try at this we settle this let me try it this way ok what's your best case for arguing that not having gone through a hearing and not having a final order from a hearing officer eliminates the requirement of exhaustion you have a case there's a case in front of this court ninth circuit  v paradise valley the facts are very similar to the facts in our case the plaintiff and school district in arizona settled their idea claims through a settlement agreement and then that plaintiff proceeded with section five hundred four eighty eight and in that case state tort claims and there was no exhaustion issue in that case there's nothing statutorily that's your best case i'm not saying there are no that's why are you saying that your best bet is my best case ok if you want to save some time for a bottle yes ok you've got a little over three minutes thank you very much for your argument we'll hear from the school district at this time assistant general counsel representing the clark county school district of nevada might have not exhausted their administrative remedies the whole intent behind exhaustion  is to make sure that we do not shift the responsibility of developing a record by the expertise of school officials as well as other experts that could participate in the development of a record what plate those are asking you to do is to shift that responsibility onto the courts that has not there isn't isn't there are there certainly what is your best statutory argument as to why a settlement along the way doesn't count as completing the administrative process or be in a different fashion ok then you're really directing me to an interpretation of twenty u s c fourteen fifteen al and the legislative fact wound decision in the tenth circuit where they considered the policy arguments but felt that the policy being forwarded by the which was to allow these other statutes that support or protect the rights of children with disabilities but what should council ha done one of the things we try to do when we reach decisions and cases is to give a pathway for people who may encounter the situation in the future what should have been done in this case to ensure exhaustion as they asked for a hearing there was a hearing in the course of the hearing there was a settlement they seem perfectly happy with the resolution of the the educational plan for the trial and they're satisfied in they're done but they've got these other points what should they have done at the point that they became satisfied with the resolution of what they brought before the hearing officer i believe that they should not have settled if they knew that they were gone to seek monetary damages before the federal district or or they should not have settled because even applying the rationale from  not testify or informed the hearing officer of their opinion as to what the appropriate for the child will be should have gone to the hearing officer and said the settlement is over or the school district has done exactly what was required of the settlement agreement but we have some claims over and above the ideate claims so we want you to enter a final order saying we're done with the idea but we've got these other big claims no i'm saying that the settlement itself should not have been entered because there are several facts facts that  has has been shared by the supreme court in the fry decision that needed to be determined in order for the court to come to the to the conclusion that exhaustion was grandmother of the complaint is an ideal client and here we know that it is and we know that exhaustion to require but i don't see fry dealing with our issue which is what cancer what procedures count  arrived at during the course of the hearing being conducted dismissed those claims with prejudice so now they have been cut off from exhausting their administrative remedies because they have withdrawn the administrative hearing as well as settling so that so doesn't that go back to judge gr policy concern about your position will discourage parties from settling could that really have been the intent of congress but i believe that  intent of congress that you would have to exhaust your administrative remedies if you give a way your right and withdraw i reciprocate or in response to judge hawkins question about what should they have done you said they just should not have settled so they go on hopefully should not have settled if they intended to prosecute a claim in federal court for monetary damages because there are significant  facts that have not been developed that could have been let me ask you a hypothetical question suppose a parent has a student who's been physically attacked slapped kicked by a teacher and they want to pursue a damage claim but they also want they're also disappointed with the way the school district has responded in terms of an adequate educational plan so before they even go to the school district they file suit on the damage claim and then they ask for hearing on the plan going forward on is that work well looking at these it your position that having file they can't pursue a coin through a hearing officer from sears i must of misunderstood your scenario they first filed they've got a kid physical teacher slaps or hits the kid they file suit state court ask for damages but they're also concerned about the educational plan for their student going forward the student may be autistic and may have other learning difficulties or you saying that they can't go to the hearing officer i believe that they can they may have to separate those claims one and i believe fry contemplated that you would be able to separate claims that would have to be exhausted as opposed to propose is that you dismiss the compliance and affirm the position of judge may hand in federal nevada federal pork and i submit that you dismiss this action with prejudice because they are cut off from exhausting their administrative remedies because they have settled and withdrawn these issues thank you very much thank you i don't feel you have some time for  so getting back to some of the questions that you were asking mr president we settled the id a choose because that's what the statute contemplates because there is a child with  due process complaint i've been resolved so how do you get around that well we played the bible for issues in the due process complaint the hearing officer issued an order indicating that he had no jurisdiction over points the settlement agreement if you look at its entirety is premised on the idea that the preamble talks about whereas a dispute arose under the idea between plaintiff in the caucus school district for denial of faith in the least restrictive environment so it's limited to the idea  there's nothing but agreement that explicitly extinguishes any other rights and if you give us an example of the if you were free to do so the damages you would see and so behavioral therapy functional communication that wasn't part of the settlement to some extent it was but that for a variety of reasons that broke down and that is what the district court dismissed without prejudice correct correct so you're free to go back to that to the hearing officer and tell him there are some problems period so that also i didn't think remains an option it does remain an option but it certainly can't could've been cut congress's intent that exhaustion exhaustion required the completion have a hearing officer appointed might even be the same hearing officer and tell that hearing officer whoever it is there are problems with what they've done it's incomplete there's not a provision for in the home education of the other things you've described in my long ago you're not wrong about that your honor however you can finish the sentence but you're out of time ok there's a lot of history with this case and so this this last attempted resolution we thought we had a good resolution and things were not follow through in our opinion by the by the county school district and so thank you doesn't feel that it's worth trying another go round again with with the school district ok thank you for your argument thank you both sides for their argument very interesting case and is now submitted for decision