A.D.L. v. Cinnaminson Township Board of Education
975 F. Supp. 2d 459
D.N.J.2013Background
- A.D.L., a student eligible under IDEA, was placed at Concordia Learning Center (St. Joseph’s School for the Blind) by a 2010 consent order; the district agreed to reimburse transportation at $285/day.
- The consent order provided a one-year residential placement from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 and included a release of claims up to the agreement date.
- Section 1(c) of the consent order stated the parent would provide weekend/break transportation and the District would reimburse $285 per diem “from the date of A.L.’s commencement ... and continuing for so long as he remains in that placement.”
- Parents later kept A.D.L. at Concordia beyond July 1, 2011 and sought an increased transportation per diem as vendor costs rose; they filed a due process petition when the District refused.
- An ALJ dismissed the parents’ petition, interpreting the consent order to lock-in the $285 per diem for as long as A.D.L. attended Concordia; parents appealed to federal court.
- The District Court held the consent order’s $285 per diem applied only to the one-year placement term and granted plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment, directing the parties to propose how to resolve reimbursement/remedy issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the consent order’s $285/day transportation per diem continued beyond the one-year placement term | Consent order was for one year; all terms (including per diem) expired July 1, 2011; parents could not have agreed to ongoing transport obligation | The per diem language in Section 1(c) is unambiguous and applies "so long as he remains in that placement," i.e., whenever A.D.L. attends Concordia | Court: The per diem applied only to the one-year placement (July 1, 2010–July 1, 2011); it did not lock in reimbursement beyond that term |
| Whether the ALJ erred in dismissing parents’ due process petition as barred by the consent order | The ALJ erred because the consent order did not extend the per diem beyond the one-year term; parents’ claim for increased per diem after July 1, 2011 is not barred | Consent order precludes claims to change the agreed per diem while placement continues at Concordia | Court: ALJ erred; parents’ claim for a new transportation per diem after July 1, 2011 survives |
| Whether subject-matter jurisdiction or res judicata bars plaintiffs’ federal action | Plaintiffs sought review under 20 U.S.C. §1415(i)(2)(A) of the ALJ’s dismissal — a federal cause of action | District argued enforcement of the settlement is a state-court matter and prior decisions preclude relitigation | Court: Federal jurisdiction exists to review the ALJ decision; res judicata does not bar this claim because the legality/interpretation of the consent order was not previously litigated |
| Remedy procedure for reimbursement since July 1, 2011 | Parents seek reimbursement and other IDEA relief; court to decide process | District may prefer ALJ remand or court hearing | Court: Denied District summary judgment, granted plaintiffs’ partial summary judgment; directed parties to state whether they request remand to ALJ, a district-court hearing, or a proposed consent order to resolve reimbursement and other relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Ridley School Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260 (3d Cir.) (explains FAPE standard and when reimbursement for private placement is required)
- L.E. v. Ramsey Bd. of Educ., 435 F.3d 384 (3d Cir.) (describes district-court review standard for IDEA administrative decisions)
- D.K. v. Abington School Dist., 696 F.3d 233 (3d Cir.) (notes questions of law in IDEA cases receive plenary review)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (summary-judgment standard)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (U.S.) (distinguishes claim- and issue-preclusion principles)