STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS . CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO . CUMSC-CV-14-120
KA THY TAYLOR, as parent and legal ) guardian of C.T. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S ) MOTION TO DISMISS STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF SffATE OF MAINE EDUCATION Cumbe) la nd ss C'e,i :< C:'lf!'ice
Defendant. JAN 2 8 2016 RECEIVED Before the court is Defendant Maine Department of Education' s ("DOE") motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Kathy Taylor' s complaint for review of an administrative hearing officer's order
and for enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement between the parties. For the following
reasons, DOE's motion to dismiss is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kathy Taylor is the mother of C.T. , a 19-year-old man with severe autism.
(Compl. ,I,I 2-3.) C.T. is a "state agency client" under Maine ' s Unified Special Education
Regulations, which implement the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").
(Id. ~ 3.) DOE is responsible for providing state agency clients with a free appropriate public
education, as required by IDEA. (Id. ~ 6.) C.T. currently receives educational services at the
Center for Autism and Developmental Disorders ("CADD") in South Portland, pursuant to an
Individualized Education Plan funded by DOE. (Id. ,I 8.)
On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed an IDEA due process complaint against DOE
alleging that C.T. had not received a free appropriate public education between 2010 and 201 4.
(Id. ~~ 19-20.) A hearing officer was appointed and a hearing was scheduled for January 30, 20 15. (Hr' g Officer Ruling 1.) The parties attended mediation on January 12, 2015, but did not
reach an agreement. (Compl., 21.) On January 20, 2015 , DOE extended a settlement offer via
email, in which DOE offered to provide an additional year for C.T. at CADD or an equivalent
educational program and a payment of $15,000 to Plaintiff. (Id. ,, 23-24.) Plaintiffs counsel
subsequently exchanged emails with DOE, in which DOE clarified that its offer encompassed a
full 12-month period and that the $15 ,000 payment would not constitute income to Plaintiff. (Id.
,, 26-27 .) Plaintiff accepted this offer on January 21 , 2015 . (Id. , 28.)
Several weeks later, it became apparent that the parties had differing interpretations of the
agreement. On February 4, 2015, DOE informed Plaintiff that it would pay $75 ,000 toward
C.T. ' s educational services for the 2016-2017 school year. (Id., 35.) Plaintiff had believed that
DOE' s offer included all of C.T.' s educational services, which cost $206,444 for the 2014-2015
school year and will likely cost more for the 2016-2017 school year due to inflation. (Compl.,
34; Def. Mot. Dismiss 2.) Plaintiff brought this dispute to the attention of the administrative
hearing officer and requested that the hearing officer hold the hearing in abeyance until the
dispute was resolved. (Hr' g Officer Ruling 2; Compl., 36.) On February 11 , 2015, the hearing
officer convened a conference call to discuss whether she had jurisdiction to decide if the parties
had entered into a settlement agreement. (Hr'g Officer Ruling 2.) On March 13 , 2015, the
hearing officer issued an order concluding that she lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the
parties had entered into a settlement agreement. (Hr ' g Officer Ruling 11; Compl. , 37.) A
hearing on Plaintiffs due process complaint has not occurred.
Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 24, 2015. (Compl. at 1.) The complaint contains
one count, which seeks review of the hearing officer' s order and enforcement of the alleged
settlement agreement. (Id. ,, 42-45 .) On April 21 , 2015 , DOE filed a motion to dismiss
2 pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6). (Def. Mot. Dismiss 1.) Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion on April 27, 2015 . (Pl. Opp 'n to Def. Mot. Dismiss 1.) DOE filed a
reply on May 6, 2015. (Def. Reply to Pl. Opp ' n to Def. Mot. Dismiss 1.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Although DOE moved to dismiss pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
because DOE is challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the appropriate standard is
actually Rule 12(b)(l). See Ewing v. Me. Dist. Court, 2009 ME 16, 1 12, 964 A.2d 644 (stating
the court should have dismissed claim under Rule 12(b)(1) when inquiry was whether court had
authority to decide the case before it).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 1) challenges the
court's subject matter jurisdiction. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l ). " When a court' s jurisdiction is
challenged, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper."
Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, 1 8, 861 A.2d 662. The court makes
no favorable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Persson v. Dep 't of Human Servs. , 2001 ME
124, 1 8, 775 A .2d 363. The court may consider materials outside of the pleadings. Gutierrez v.
Gutierrez, 2007 ME 59, 110, 92 1 A.2d 153 .
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
DOE argues that the IDEA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
claim because her claim presents the issue of whether a settlement agreement was reached,
which is a matter of state law. (Def. Mot. Dismiss 3.) Plaintiff argues that her claim is an
independent civil action, which is expressly permitted by the IDEA. (Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot.
Dismiss 3-4.) The IDEA provides :
3 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.
20 U.S .C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) (2012). The statute' s use of the term "civil action" and its inclusion of
a separate section delineating the process for appeals make clear that it contemplates independent
civil actions. Kirkpatrickv. Lenoir Cnty. Ed. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380, 384 (4th Cir. 2000).
Thus, the issue is more specifically whether Plaintiffs claim is the type of civil action
contemplated by the IDEA, i.e. , whether it falls under§ 1415(i)(2)(A) . That subsection confers
jurisdiction over findings and decisions made under subsections (f), (k), or (i). Subsection (f)
governs the procedure for due process hearings . 20 U.S .C. § 1415(£). Plaintiff cannot rely on
this provision because a due process hearing has not yet occurred. See 46 Am. Jur. 2d Schools §
427 (IDEA confers jurisdiction for parties aggrieved by findings or decisions made in a due
process hearing) ; see also MM v. Lafay ette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2012)
(IDEA does not allow judicial review of pre-hearing orders). Subsection (k) governs the
procedure for placing a student in an alternative educational setting. 20 U.S .C. § 1415(k).
Plaintiff cannot rely on this provision because she has not alleged that C.T. was placed in an
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS . CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO . CUMSC-CV-14-120
KA THY TAYLOR, as parent and legal ) guardian of C.T. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S ) MOTION TO DISMISS STATE OF MAINE, DEPARTMENT OF SffATE OF MAINE EDUCATION Cumbe) la nd ss C'e,i :< C:'lf!'ice
Defendant. JAN 2 8 2016 RECEIVED Before the court is Defendant Maine Department of Education' s ("DOE") motion to
dismiss Plaintiff Kathy Taylor' s complaint for review of an administrative hearing officer's order
and for enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement between the parties. For the following
reasons, DOE's motion to dismiss is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kathy Taylor is the mother of C.T. , a 19-year-old man with severe autism.
(Compl. ,I,I 2-3.) C.T. is a "state agency client" under Maine ' s Unified Special Education
Regulations, which implement the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").
(Id. ~ 3.) DOE is responsible for providing state agency clients with a free appropriate public
education, as required by IDEA. (Id. ~ 6.) C.T. currently receives educational services at the
Center for Autism and Developmental Disorders ("CADD") in South Portland, pursuant to an
Individualized Education Plan funded by DOE. (Id. ,I 8.)
On December 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed an IDEA due process complaint against DOE
alleging that C.T. had not received a free appropriate public education between 2010 and 201 4.
(Id. ~~ 19-20.) A hearing officer was appointed and a hearing was scheduled for January 30, 20 15. (Hr' g Officer Ruling 1.) The parties attended mediation on January 12, 2015, but did not
reach an agreement. (Compl., 21.) On January 20, 2015 , DOE extended a settlement offer via
email, in which DOE offered to provide an additional year for C.T. at CADD or an equivalent
educational program and a payment of $15,000 to Plaintiff. (Id. ,, 23-24.) Plaintiffs counsel
subsequently exchanged emails with DOE, in which DOE clarified that its offer encompassed a
full 12-month period and that the $15 ,000 payment would not constitute income to Plaintiff. (Id.
,, 26-27 .) Plaintiff accepted this offer on January 21 , 2015 . (Id. , 28.)
Several weeks later, it became apparent that the parties had differing interpretations of the
agreement. On February 4, 2015, DOE informed Plaintiff that it would pay $75 ,000 toward
C.T. ' s educational services for the 2016-2017 school year. (Id., 35.) Plaintiff had believed that
DOE' s offer included all of C.T.' s educational services, which cost $206,444 for the 2014-2015
school year and will likely cost more for the 2016-2017 school year due to inflation. (Compl.,
34; Def. Mot. Dismiss 2.) Plaintiff brought this dispute to the attention of the administrative
hearing officer and requested that the hearing officer hold the hearing in abeyance until the
dispute was resolved. (Hr' g Officer Ruling 2; Compl., 36.) On February 11 , 2015, the hearing
officer convened a conference call to discuss whether she had jurisdiction to decide if the parties
had entered into a settlement agreement. (Hr'g Officer Ruling 2.) On March 13 , 2015, the
hearing officer issued an order concluding that she lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the
parties had entered into a settlement agreement. (Hr ' g Officer Ruling 11; Compl. , 37.) A
hearing on Plaintiffs due process complaint has not occurred.
Plaintiff filed this complaint on March 24, 2015. (Compl. at 1.) The complaint contains
one count, which seeks review of the hearing officer' s order and enforcement of the alleged
settlement agreement. (Id. ,, 42-45 .) On April 21 , 2015 , DOE filed a motion to dismiss
2 pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 6). (Def. Mot. Dismiss 1.) Plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion on April 27, 2015 . (Pl. Opp 'n to Def. Mot. Dismiss 1.) DOE filed a
reply on May 6, 2015. (Def. Reply to Pl. Opp ' n to Def. Mot. Dismiss 1.)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
Although DOE moved to dismiss pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
because DOE is challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the appropriate standard is
actually Rule 12(b)(l). See Ewing v. Me. Dist. Court, 2009 ME 16, 1 12, 964 A.2d 644 (stating
the court should have dismissed claim under Rule 12(b)(1) when inquiry was whether court had
authority to decide the case before it).
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 1) challenges the
court's subject matter jurisdiction. M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(l ). " When a court' s jurisdiction is
challenged, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper."
Commerce Bank & Trust Co. v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, 1 8, 861 A.2d 662. The court makes
no favorable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Persson v. Dep 't of Human Servs. , 2001 ME
124, 1 8, 775 A .2d 363. The court may consider materials outside of the pleadings. Gutierrez v.
Gutierrez, 2007 ME 59, 110, 92 1 A.2d 153 .
B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
DOE argues that the IDEA does not confer subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs
claim because her claim presents the issue of whether a settlement agreement was reached,
which is a matter of state law. (Def. Mot. Dismiss 3.) Plaintiff argues that her claim is an
independent civil action, which is expressly permitted by the IDEA. (Pl. Opp'n to Def. Mot.
Dismiss 3-4.) The IDEA provides :
3 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.
20 U.S .C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) (2012). The statute' s use of the term "civil action" and its inclusion of
a separate section delineating the process for appeals make clear that it contemplates independent
civil actions. Kirkpatrickv. Lenoir Cnty. Ed. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380, 384 (4th Cir. 2000).
Thus, the issue is more specifically whether Plaintiffs claim is the type of civil action
contemplated by the IDEA, i.e. , whether it falls under§ 1415(i)(2)(A) . That subsection confers
jurisdiction over findings and decisions made under subsections (f), (k), or (i). Subsection (f)
governs the procedure for due process hearings . 20 U.S .C. § 1415(£). Plaintiff cannot rely on
this provision because a due process hearing has not yet occurred. See 46 Am. Jur. 2d Schools §
427 (IDEA confers jurisdiction for parties aggrieved by findings or decisions made in a due
process hearing) ; see also MM v. Lafay ette Sch. Dist., 681 F.3d 1082, 1087-89 (9th Cir. 2012)
(IDEA does not allow judicial review of pre-hearing orders). Subsection (k) governs the
procedure for placing a student in an alternative educational setting. 20 U.S .C. § 1415(k).
Plaintiff cannot rely on this provision because she has not alleged that C.T. was placed in an
alternative educational setting. Subsection (i) applies to findings and decisions made at a hearing
or appeal to the state educational agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(l)(A)-(B). Neither a hearing nor
an appeal to the state educational agency has occurred. Therefore, § 1415(i)(2)(A) does not
confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim because neither subsection (f), (k), nor (i) apply.
The parties point to other language in the IDEA to support their respective positions that
this court does or does not have jurisdiction. Plaintiff points to subsection (b) as evidence that
the IDEA authorizes a. broad array of complaints. (Pl. Opp 'n to Def. Mot. Dismiss 5-6. ) That
4 subsection allows a party to bring "a complaint . .. with respect to any matter relating to the
identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free
appropriate public education to such child .... " 20 U.S.C. § 14 15(b)(6)(A). However, subsection
(b) provides the basis for administrative due process complaints, not civil complaints. See
Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-27 (2007) (explaining that a complaint
brought under subsection 1415(b)(6)(A) triggers the administrative review process); Robert K. v.
Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 279 F. App'x 798, 801 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that plaintiffs breach of
settlement agreement claim did not come under§ 1415(b)(6)(A) because it "did not require any
adjudication of plaintiffs' rights under the IDEA or any consideration of the text of the IDEA").
Additionally, DOE points to the phrase "with respect to the complaint presented pursuant
to this section" in § 1415(i)(2)(A) and argues that plaintiffs claim is not "with respect to" her
due process complaint because they involve different subject matter. (Def. Reply to Pl. Opp'n to
Def. Mot. Dismiss 2.) A plaintiff must first "file a separate administrative complaint to raise
that issue and exhaust all administrative remedies regarding that complaint before filing a
judicial action." MTV v. Dekalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 1153, 1159 (11th Cir. 2006)
(emphasis added). Although Plaintiffs due process complaint is not included in the record, it is
clear that the complaint could not have raised issues regarding the hearing officer's order and the
existence of a settlement agreement because those issues arose after Plaintiff filed the due
process complaint. Therefore, Plaintiffs claim is not "with respect to" her due process
complaint, and Plaintiff cannot rely on that portion of§ 1415(i)(2)(A) for this reason as well.
III. CONCLUSION
The IDEA confers jurisdiction over civil actions when a party is aggrieved by a finding
or decision under subsections (f), (k), or (i). Subsection (k) is not relevant the present action, and
5 subsections (f) and (i) govern hearings and administrative appeals, neither of which has occurred.
As a result, the IDEA does not confer jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claim.
Therefore, based on the foregoing , Defendant Maine Department of Education' s motion
to dismiss Plaintiff Kathy Taylor's complaint is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter this Order on the civil docket by reference pursuant to
Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a).
Date I /a(;&