Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00675/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00675-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 07CV0675 BTM(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MYRON WOOLEY and JULIANA

WOOLEY, Parents of EW, a Minor,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07cv0675 BTM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS

v.

VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Local Educational

Agency,

Defendant.

Defendant Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District (“Defendant” or “School

District”) has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

failure to state a claim. For the reasons discussed below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Myron and Juliana Wooley are the parents of E.W., a sixth-grader at Lilac

Elementary School. E.W. qualifies for special education due to diagnoses of autism, mild

mental retardation, speech and language impairment, motor delays, visual-perceptual and

attention deficits, and social delays. (Compl. ¶ 8.) 

This is the second action Plaintiffs have brought against the District in this Court. In

the first action, Case No. 06cv2451 BTM(RBB), Plaintiffs alleged that the District had denied

Case 3:07-cv-00675-BTM-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs agreed to waive all claims made,

or that could have been made, through the date of the execution of the Agreement in

exchange for the District’s agreement to the following: (1) to provide a one-to-one aide during

the regular school day; (2) to develop a plan for conducting and completing a comprehensive

autism assessment, an occupational therapy assessment, and a language and speech

evaluation; (3) convene an Individualized Educational Program team meeting to review the

assessments and make an educational program available for the remainder of the 2005-2006

school year and the 2006-2007 school year; and (4) pay attorneys’ fees and costs incurred

by Plaintiffs in connection with the pending due process action.

2 07CV0675 BTM(RBB)

E.W. a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), as required by the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), from the 2002-2003 school year through the 2006-2007

school year. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for (1) rescission of a settlement agreement

the parties had entered into on February 17, 20061; (2) a compensatory education; (3)

violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and

(4) attorney’s fees and costs.

Pursuant to a stipulation filed by the parties, the Court dismissed with prejudice

Plaintiffs’ claim for rescission of the settlement agreement and Plaintiffs’ claim under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The remaining claims were

dismissed by an order filed on January 22, 2007. In that order, the Court held that Plaintiffs

had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and had failed to establish that exhaustion

would be futile due to the alleged inadequacy of the administrative process.

On February 13, 2007 Plaintiffs filed a new request for a due process hearing with the

Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). (Ex. 2 to Compl.) In the request, Plaintiffs

complain that the District failed to offer and provide E.W. a FAPE for the 2005-2006 school

year and the 2006-2007 school year. For each school year in dispute, Plaintiffs identify a

number of reasons why E.W. was denied a FAPE. 

On March 26, 2007, the District filed a motion to limit the issues to be heard based on

the parties’ settlement agreement and the stipulated dismissal with prejudice in the prior

court action. Specifically, the District requested dismissal of the following issues pertaining

to the 2005-2006 school year: 

Issue One: Failure to offer and provide a FAPE for the 2005-2006 school year

through the failure to timely provide a 1:1 CARES Aide;

Case 3:07-cv-00675-BTM-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 07CV0675 BTM(RBB)

Issue Two: Failure to offer and provide a FAPE for the 2005-2006 school year

through the failure to allow E.W.’s NPA aide to assist her in all areas of her

school day, including the accompanying of E.W. to the bathroom and the bus;

and

Issue Three: Failure to offer and provide a FAPE for the 2005-2006 school

year through the failure to timely complete a comprehensive autism

assessment by Dr. Robert Patterson, an occupational therapy assessment by

Susanne Smith Roley, and a language and speech evaluation by San Diego

State University. 

Plaintiffs withdrew Issue One on the basis of the settlement agreement, but opposed

the dismissal of Issues Two and Three.

On April 6, 2007, the OAH granted the District’s motion to limit the issues.

Subsequently, Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their request for a due process hearing and

commenced this action.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that this action should be dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed

to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Court agrees.

Under the IDEA, parents who present complaints with respect to any matter relating

to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a free

appropriate education to such child, are entitled to an impartial due process hearing by the

State educational agency or the local educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6), (f). Any

party aggrieved by the “findings and decision” made in the due process action has the right

to bring a civil action in a state or federal district court within 90 days of the decision. 20

U.S.C. § 1415(i).

Ordinarily, judicial review under the IDEA is available only after the aggrieved party

exhausts administrative remedies. Doe v. Arizona Dept. Of Educ., 111 F.3d 678, 681 (9th

Cir. 1997). The exhaustion doctrine “embodies the notion that ‘agencies, not the courts,

ought to have primary responsibility for the programs that Congress has charged them to

administer.’” Hoeft v. Tucson Unified School Dist., 967 F.2d 1298, 1303 (9th Cir. 1992)

(quoting McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 144 (1992)). “Exhaustion of the administrative

Case 3:07-cv-00675-BTM-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 07CV0675 BTM(RBB)

process allows for the exercise of discretion and educational expertise by state and local

agencies, affords full exploration of technical education issues, furthers development of a

complete factual record, and promotes judicial efficiency by giving these agencies the first

opportunity to correct shortcomings in their educational programs for disabled children.” Id.

Plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies because they withdrew

their due process request. If the OAH had dismissed Plaintiffs’ entire claim that E.W. was

deprived of a FAPE during the 2005-2006 school year, Plaintiffs would have a stronger

argument that the exhaustion requirement has been satisfied. See, e.g., Vandenberg v.

Appleton Area Sch. Dist., 252 F. Supp. 2d 786 (E.D. Wis. 2003) (finding that exhaustion

requirement had been satisfied, even though plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed entire due

process action, where the ALJ dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims arising prior to August 21,

2001). Here, however, the OAH dismissal did not dispose of Plaintiffs’ claim that E.W. was

deprived of a FAPE during the 2005-2006 school year.

The OAH’s decision to dismiss Issues Two and Three from the hearing did not relieve

Plaintiffs of their duty to proceed with the OAH hearing with respect to the other grounds for

claiming that E.W. was deprived of a FAPE during the 2005-2006 school year – i.e., failure

to provide appropriate school transportation, failure to conduct a functional analysis

assessment, and fabrication of work-product and teacher progress reports that were

presented at an IEP. If the OAH finds that E.W. was deprived of a FAPE during the 2005-

2006 school year on one or more of these other grounds, the dismissed issues may be

rendered moot.

Furthermore, the relief Plaintiffs sought before the OAH is not specific to the dismissed

issues and may be obtained in whole or in part if Plaintiffs’ prevail on the remaining issues.

Plaintiffs’ proposed resolution of all of their claims for the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school

years is: (1) The district should be ordered to provide compensatory education including,

immediate district-funded enrollment at TERI, Inc., The Country School, or another equally

appropriate non-public school with appropriate aides and supports as well as appropriate

special education transportation; and (2) the District should be ordered to reimburse E.W.’s

Case 3:07-cv-00675-BTM-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 07CV0675 BTM(RBB)

parents for any independent educational assessments and any educational services during

the time period complained of. (Exh. 2 to Compl.) The OAH has not had the opportunity to

determine whether this relief should be granted. 

Allowing Plaintiffs to appeal issues piecemeal would not be an efficient use of judicial

resources and would hinder proceedings before the OAH. See Johnson v. Board of Educ.

of the Glens Falls Common Sch. Dist., __ F. Supp. 2d. __, 2007 WL 952060 at * 6 n. 4

(N.D.N.Y. 2007) (explaining that it was improper for plaintiffs to bring claims piecemeal

instead of exhausting all administrative remedies first before filing in federal court); Hesling

v. Avon Grove Sch. Dist., 428 F. Supp. 2d 262, 275-76 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (concluding that

exhaustion is required whenever any part of the dispute might be resolved at the

administrative level). Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their

administrative remedies, and this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Complaint is

GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment

accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 11, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00675-BTM-RBB Document 13 Filed 07/11/07 Page 5 of 5