Source: https://thelegaltaxi.com/Home/RSC_Civil_AdministrativeLawSample
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:12:20
Document Index: 482968172

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1415', '§ 1415', '§ 1411', '§ 1411', '§ 1415', '§ 300', '§ 1415', '§ 1400', '§ 1412', '§ 1415', '§ 1983']

Relevant Statute and Case : Civil and Administrative Law
(Attached the highlighted copy of leading case)
RE: Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject Matter Jurisdiction under IDEA
Student (my client) won a case at the administrative level for reimbursement of costs for private educational expenses. It was appealed by Defendant, and decision was upheld. That decision was issued in State Circuit Court. In another matter for the same student, the Defendant settled a case for reimbursement of costs for private educational expenses. Later, Defendant refused to pay some of these costs and I brought a claim is USDC for reimbursement outstanding from both cases. Briefing on the merits is complete, but the Judge questions subject matter jurisdiction. As to the case that was settled, he may be correct. The law under which the case arises is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2).
We received a query concerning the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction (SMJ) by a federal district court hearing matter arising from two IDEA claims. We have researched the provisions of the IDEA that grant concurrent powers to state and federal courts. We have located some exemplary cases that deal with issues of SMJ under the IDEA and more generally. Finally, we have located a law review article that we recommend because it addresses issues of SMJ under IDEA.
§ 1415. Procedural safeguards
(a) Establishment of procedures. Any State educational agency, State agency, or local educational agency that receives assistance under this part [20 USCS §§ 1411 et seq.] shall establish and maintain procedures in accordance with this section to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education by such agencies. * * *
(A) Decision made in hearing. A decision made in a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (f) or (k) shall be final, except that any party involved in such hearing may appeal such decision under the provisions of subsection (g) and paragraph (2). * * *
(2) Right to bring civil action.
(A) In general. Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made under subsection (f) or (k) who does not have the right to an appeal under subsection (g), and any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made under this subsection, shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section, which action may be brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States, without regard to the amount in controversy.
(B) Limitation. The party bringing the action shall have 90 days from the date of the decision of the hearing officer to bring such an action, or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for bringing such action under this part [20 USCS §§ 1411 et seq.], in such time as the State law allows.
(C) Additional requirements. In any action brought under this paragraph, the court--
(o) Separate complaint. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude a parent from filing a separate due process complaint on an issue separate from a due process complaint already filed.
20 USCS § 1415
Under 34 CFR § 300.515(a), which is applicable to 20 USCS § 1415(f) of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 USCS §§ 1400-1487, public agency must ensure that not later than 45 days after expiration of 30 day period final decision is reached in hearing; Haw. Admin. R. 8-56-77(a) similarly provides that Hawaii Department of Education shall ensure that no later than 45 days after receipt of request for hearing final decision is reached in hearing; nothing in these provisions supports conclusion that hearing officer lacks subject matter jurisdiction once decision deadline lapses. Paul K. v Hawaii (2008, DC Hawaii) 567 F Supp 2d 1231.
Out of state private care providers had no standing under U.S. Const. art. III to bring claim against state department of education under Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) to recover expenses for treating minor because Congress did not intend for IDEA to provide procedural safeguards to providers under 20 USCS § 1412 and 20 USCS § 1415 and providers were not aggrieved parties entitled to redress for suffering financial injuries. Piedmont Behavioral Health Ctr., LLC v Stewart (2006, SD W Va) 413 F Supp 2d 746.
USCS Fed Rules Civ Proc R 12
(a) Time to Serve a Responsive Pleading
(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. After the pleadings are closed--but early enough not to delay trial--a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
(d) Result of Presenting Matters Outside the Pleadings. If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgement under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.
(i) Hearing Before Trial. If a party so moves, any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(1)-(7)--whether made in a pleading or by motion--and a motion under Rule 12(c) must be heard and decided before trial unless the court orders a deferral until trial.
42 USCS § 1983
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Highlighted copy of relevant cases :
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_1
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_2
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_3
Copy of referred Cases :
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_R1
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_R2
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_R3
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_R4
Civil_Law_and_Administrative_Law_S1