C.E. v. Chappaqua Central School District
695 F. App'x 621
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Parents (C.E. and J.E.) removed their son D.E. from Chappaqua Central School District and sought IDEA reimbursement for private placement for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; IHO and SRO denied relief and district court affirmed.
- District court denied the Parents’ summary judgment motion, issued a merits opinion finding the IEPs and offered services procedurally and substantively adequate, and entered final judgment closing the case.
- School District argued lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the SRO purportedly dismissed on procedural (font/page) grounds, but the SRO also addressed the merits.
- Parents challenged the IHO’s impartiality and competence (past superintendent role, not an attorney, and allegedly sleeping), and attacked the 2011 Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) as untimely, procedurally flawed, and unlikely to be implemented.
- The district court credited the School District’s witnesses over the Parents’ witnesses; the court and this Panel treated contested credibility as within the administrative/state officers’ province and deferred accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction after denial of summary judgment | Denial of summary judgment is interlocutory; no final appealable order | District court’s merits opinion + clerk’s entry created final judgment | Appealable final judgment existed; court has jurisdiction |
| Exhaustion where SRO noted procedural defects | SRO’s statement that appeal was dismissed for page/font noncompliance meant no exhaustion | SRO actually reached and decided merits despite noting defects; exhaustion satisfied | Exhaustion satisfied; SRO rendered a merits decision, so jurisdiction proper |
| IHO bias/competence | IHO biased due to prior superintendent role; incompetent because not an attorney and allegedly slept | IHO complied with regulations, grandfathered as non-attorney, experienced, and attentive | No bias or incompetence shown; IHO credible and competent |
| Adequacy and implementation of 2011 BIP/IEPs | BIP was late, process flawed, and District would not implement/ update it, so private placement reimbursable | BIP was developed for 2011-12, District had capacity and committed to implement/update; parents’ claims speculative | BIP/IEPs were procedurally and substantively adequate; speculative implementation claims fail; denial of reimbursement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- McColley v. Cty. of Rensselaer, 740 F.3d 817 (2d Cir.) (orders denying summary judgment ordinarily are not final)
- Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (reviewing IDEA appeal after district court denied summary judgment and entered judgment)
- AmBase Corp. v. United States, 731 F.3d 109 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for district court jurisdiction determinations)
- C.F. ex rel. R.F. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68 (2d Cir.) (IDEA review standard: more probing than clear error but not de novo)
- M.O. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 793 F.3d 236 (2d Cir.) (speculative claims that a district will not follow an IEP are insufficient)
- M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d Cir.) (courts should not reweigh credibility or substitute their judgment for administrative officers)
- Polera v. Bd. Of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478 (2d Cir.) (purpose of exhaustion requirement under IDEA)