Opinion ID: 6323841
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The settlement fully disposes of all issues in

Text: controversy between them and is consistent with the law. A50-51. The ALJ also explicitly ordered “that the parties comply with the settlement terms.” The settlement agreement, among other things, reflects that the parties would each bear their own fees and costs. On May 10, 2019, Appellants wrote separately to the Superintendent of Ringwood Public Schools and all members of the Board repudiating the agreement. That same day, Appellants filed a motion before the ALJ to “set aside the settlement.” On June 14, 2019, Appellants filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged that Appellants did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into the agreement; they sought relief pursuant to the IDEA (Count 1 Only G.W. was present at the hearing date for Appellants. 4 One), the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Act to declare the settlement void (Count Two), and the New Jersey Declaratory Judgment and Civil Rights Acts to declare the attorney fee waiver void (Count Three). The Board moved to dismiss the complaint. In resolving the motion, the District Court sua sponte raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. It characterized Plaintiff’s complaint as arising out of contract law and questioned whether the ALJ’s bare findings that the settlement was entered into voluntarily and resolved all disputes before the OAL satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of the IDEA. Accordingly, the District Court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and directed the parties to brief the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. After the parties briefed the issue, the District Court concluded that it was without jurisdiction. It held that no jurisdiction was conferred by two provisions of the IDEA providing for the enforceability of settlement agreements in the federal courts: 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e), the mediation provision; or § 1415(f)(1)(B), the resolution session provision. It also held that no jurisdiction attached pursuant to § 1415(i) because the ALJ’s decision was not based on “substantive grounds,” as required by § 1415(f). The District Court accordingly dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellants filed this timely appeal. 5