Ms. M. v. Falmouth School Department
875 F.3d 75
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Ms. M sued Falmouth School Department on behalf of her daughter O.M., alleging denial of a FAPE under IDEA for not providing SPIRE reading instruction.
- On first appeal (Falmouth I), this Court held O.M.'s IEP did not require SPIRE in third grade and reversed the district court's finding of an IEP breach and vacated damages.
- After that decision, Ms. M sought to amend her district-court complaint to add an "inappropriate design" claim that the IEP lacked a structured reading program like SPIRE; that claim had not been pled in the district court (though it had been raised at the administrative hearing).
- The district court denied the motion to amend, invoking the law of the case based on this Court’s prior decision; Ms. M appealed that denial.
- Falmouth sought attorney fees under IDEA for post-Falmouth I litigation; the district court denied fees and Falmouth did not appeal that denial.
- This Court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend and declined to award Falmouth appellate attorney fees for this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying motion to amend complaint after appellate decision | Ms. M: Amendment allowed to assert inappropriate-design claim in response to appellate ruling | Falmouth: Claim was waived/not properly before the district court; law of the case bars relitigation | Affirmed: denial affirmed — claim waived and law of the case applies |
| Whether plaintiff was "aggrieved" and therefore could not have sued earlier under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) | Ms. M: Not aggrieved by IEP-design findings until this Court’s decision | Falmouth: Ms. M was aggrieved by the hearing officer’s adverse decision and could sue on that theory earlier | Held: Ms. M was aggrieved and could have raised the claim earlier; she waived it by not doing so |
| Whether law of the case precludes adding new theory after an adverse appellate ruling | Ms. M: Should be allowed to amend given appellate outcome | Falmouth: Allowing amendment would undermine finality and mandate rules | Held: Law of the case bars relitigation and post-appeal amendment absent compelling circumstances, which were not shown |
| Whether Falmouth is entitled to appellate attorney fees under IDEA for continued litigation | Falmouth: Fees allowable if Ms. M continued frivolous litigation after appeal | Ms. M: Appeal raised nonfrivolous law-of-the-case questions; district court invited appeal | Held: No fees awarded — appeal raised nonfrivolous issues and district court’s invitation weighed against fees |
Key Cases Cited
- M. v. Falmouth Sch. Dep't, 847 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2017) (prior appellate decision holding IEP did not require SPIRE instruction)
- Morales-Alejandro v. Med. Card Sys., Inc., 486 F.3d 693 (abuse-of-discretion review of motion-to-amend denials)
- Negrón-Almeda v. Santiago, 579 F.3d 45 (de novo review of law-of-the-case application)
- Hampton Sch. Dist. v. Dobrowolski, 976 F.2d 48 (claims not raised in district court cannot be raised on appeal)
- G.D. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942 (policy reasons for not surprising district court with new appellate claims)
- James v. Watt, 716 F.2d 71 (disfavoring post-judgment complaint amendments to account for an adverse appellate decision)
- Cohen v. Brown Univ., 101 F.3d 155 (law-of-the-case doctrine prevents relitigation in successive stages)
- United States v. Connell, 6 F.3d 27 (mandate rule: courts must implement letter and spirit of appellate mandate)