E.M. v. Lewisville Independent School District, 4:15-cv-00564

E.M., a minor with a disability, resided in Lewisville ISD and pursued two IDEA due-process hearing requests; the first hearing decision (May 22, 2015) found LISD provided FAPE.
While the first hearing was pending, E.M. filed a second due-process request (March 26, 2015). A Hearing Officer dismissed the second request on August 21, 2015, as precluded by the first proceeding.
E.M. appealed the first hearing decision to federal court; separately, E.M. sought reconsideration of the dismissal of the second proceeding, which the Hearing Officer did not rule on.
E.M. filed an amended complaint in federal court on December 10, 2015, challenging the August 21, 2015 dismissal.
LISD moved to partially dismiss the Second Amended Original Complaint, arguing the IDEA’s 90-day filing period bars E.M.’s appeal; the court granted dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IDEA 90‑day filing period is jurisdictional	The 90‑day limit is a statute of limitations, not a jurisdictional bar, and LISD waived it by not pleading it as an affirmative defense	The 90‑day limit is mandatory and jurisdictional, so failure to file within 90 days deprives the court of subject‑matter jurisdiction	The court held the 90‑day limit is jurisdictional and E.M.’s appeal was untimely, so the court lacks subject‑matter jurisdiction
Whether a Motion for Reconsideration tolled the 90‑day period	Reconsideration under Texas rules or the administrative code tolled the filing deadline	Texas law and the administrative code do not permit tolling here; no rule allows reconsideration of a hearing officer’s decision or tolling absent a modified judgment	The court held no tolling occurred: the hearing officer did not modify the decision and Texas law provides no basis to toll the 90‑day period

Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006 (5th Cir. 1998) (Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal standard for subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional challenges under Rule 12(b)(1) addressed before merits)
Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548 (5th Cir. 2008) (standards for considering jurisdictional materials beyond the complaint)
Barrera‑Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1996) (same)
Truman v. United States, 26 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 1994) (pleaded facts are accepted as true on a Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack)
Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject‑matter jurisdiction)