Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07836/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07836-1/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

R.K., a minor, by and through his parents, T.K.

and C.K.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HAYWARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

et al.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINT

 /

No. C 06-07836 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JANUARY 19, 2006:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 21 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on September 29, 2006, his parents filed a

complaint regarding violations of the Agreement and Hayward Unified School District

(the “District”) and Esther B.Clark school’s (“EBC”) failure to comply with the Stay Put

Order issued by the California Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). (Compl., ¶

65.) Was Plaintiff referring to the due process complaint he filed with OAH and then

withdrew in November 2006? 

(a) If so, how did the due process complaint assert any issues with respect to the Stay

Put Order since the Stay Put Order was issued in response to the Complaint being

filed? 

(b) If not, to what complaint was Plaintiff referring?

(2) In light of the fact that Plaintiff withdrew his complaint and the OAH thus dismissed the

administrative action, on what basis does Plaintiff contend that the Stay Put Order issued

by the administrative judge is valid and may be enforced by this Court?

(3) In addition to his claims that relate to the alleged violation of the Settlement Agreement,

does Plaintiff have any claims that he was or is being denied a free and appropriate

public education (“FAPE”)?

(a) If so, what is the factual basis for such claims?

(b) Were such claims raised in the Due Process Complaint filed by Plaintiff on

March 7, 2006?

(c) Based on what authority does Plaintiff contend such claims need not be

exhausted administratively?

(4) The Settlement Agreement provides that Plaintiff shall be enrolled at EBC during the

2005-2006 school year, but does not address where Plaintiff will be enrolled after the

2005-2006 school year. 

(a) In light of this fact, on what basis, if any, does Plaintiff contend that resolving

any disputes as to performance under the Settlement Agreement will address

where or how Plaintiff will be provided a FAPE during the 2006-2007 school

year?

(b) What damages or other relief is Plaintiff seeking based on the alleged breaches of

the Settlement Agreement?

(5) The procedures required by agencies that receive assistance under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) include an opportunity for mediation. See 20

U.S.C. § 1415(b)(5). Moreover, in the event that the parties resolve a due process

complaint pursuant to the mediation process, the parties are required to execute a legally

binding agreement that “is enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in

a district court of the United States.” See 20 U.S.C. §(e)(2)(F). This action to enforce

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 21 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

the Settlement Agreement appears to constitute a “proceeding[] conducted pursuant to

this section” under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). Thus, under the plain language of the statute,

the Court appears to have authority to issue an original stay put order. However, as

Plaintiff himself points out in his reply brief, “[t]he purpose of the stay-put provision is

to maintain the status quo and to prevent the school district from unilaterally denying

placement to a student while a dispute over the placement is being resolved.” Van Scoy

ex rel. Van Scoy v. San Luis Coastal Unified School Dist., 353 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1086

(C.D. Cal. 2005) (emphasis added); see also In re John K., 170 Cal. App. 3d 783, 794

(1985) (noting that the objective of the stay put requirement is “to maintain the status

quo during placement disputes”) (emphasis added). To the extent the Court has

jurisdiction to hear claims regarding alleged breaches of the Settlement Agreement

regarding past services, such claims do not involve a dispute over Plaintiff’s current

placement. How do the parties reconcile the plain language with the purpose of the

statute with respect to issuing a stay put order? On what authority do the parties rely on

to support their respective positions?

(6) The District has offered to enroll Plaintiff in a certified nonpublic school, Keystone,

which it contends is comparable to EBC and would provide Plaintiff an adequate and

appropriate education. In his reply brief, Plaintiff asserts, but does not explain why,

Keystone would not be an appropriate placement. Why does Plaintiff believe Keystone

would not be an appropriate placement for him?

(7) If EBC refuses to accept and teach Plaintiff, why should the District not be granted an

exception to the stay put requirement?

(8) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: January 18, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07836-JSW Document 21 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3