Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. v. Brady
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:18-cv-00463-RJC-DSC |
| Parties | CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. ALEAH BRADY, individually, and by and through parent, Jason Brady, and JASON BRADY, individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff,
v.
ALEAH BRADY, individually, and by and through parent, Jason Brady, and JASON BRADY, individually, Defendants.
No. 3:18-cv-00463-RJC-DSC
United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
March 31, 2022
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. United States District Judge
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (DE 24), Defendants' Answer and Counterclaim, (DE 27), the Parties' briefs, (DEs 18, 19), and Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim, (DE 31). The Court has reviewed the pleadings, motions, exhibits thereto, and applicable law and has considered the Parties' briefed arguments. For the reasons stated herein, the Court concludes that Defendants' claims are not time barred because the withholding exception to the statute of limitations applies; and Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In light of the Court's decision, Defendants' underlying IDEA claims that are pending before the ALJ on remand from the SHRO are now ripe for a decision on the merits from the ALJ.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Procedural Background
On January 22, 2018, Aleah Brady (“A.B.”), by and through her parent, Jason Brady (“J.B.”) (together, “Defendants”) filed a Petition for Contested Case Hearing in the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), alleging the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education (“CMS”) violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. On April 18, 2018, the ALJ issued a Final Decision which consisted of eight (8) paragraphs and did not contain any specific findings of fact or conclusions of law. (DE 12 at 21-24). The ALJ determined A.B. and her father knew or should have known of their claims prior to January 18, 2017, and the exceptions to the statute of limitations did not apply as CMS did not withhold information from A.B.'s parents that was required under state or federal law. (DE 12 at 21-24). The ALJ's decision did not reach the merits of A.B.'s underlying claims.
On April 23, 2018, A.B. and her father appealed the ALJ's Decision to the North Carolina State Board of Education and a SHRO was appointed to review the ALJ's Decision. (DE 12 at 340-41). The SHRO issued a written decision on May 27, 2018, reversing the ALJ's Decision and remanding the case. (DE 12 at 684-723). The SHRO held that the withholding exception to the IDEA's statute of limitations applied because CMS failed to provide notice to A.B.'s parents of the IDEA's procedural safeguards or issue a prior written notice of CMS' refusal to evaluate A.B. under the IDEA. (DE 12 at 721). The SHRO's Decision did not reach the merits of Defendants' underlying claims. (DE 12 at 721).
On August 22, 2018, CMS filed a Complaint before this Court seeking reversal of the SHRO's Decision, reinstatement of the ALJ's Decision, and dismissal of the underlying Petition in its entirety. (DE 1 at 8). On October 18, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer requesting this Court deny Plaintiffs' prayer for relief, uphold the SHRO's Decision, and find that the statute of limitations does not bar Defendants' IDEA claims. (DE 6 at 7).
During the pendency of this case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in Johnson v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Ed., 20 F.4th 835 (4th Cir. 2021). The court clarified that under principles of federalism, and it's prior holding in Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir Cnty
Bd. of Educ., 216 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2000), federal district courts do not possess “appellate review over state administrative IDEA complaints, ” and do not simply “affirm, reverse, or vacate” decisions from a state administrative agency. Johnson, 20 F.4th at 845-46. Thus, the Fourth Circuit concluded in Johnson that federal district courts lack authority to “remand” an IDEA case to a state agency. Id. at 17.
In light of the Fourth Circuit's holding in Johnson, on January 27, 2022, CMS filed an Amended Complaint requesting that this Court conduct an appropriate review of the SHRO's Decision, the administrative record, and enter an Order with an independent final legal determination that the allegations in Defendants' Petition are outside of the one-year statute of limitations applicable to IDEA claims under North Carolina law. (DE 24 at 9). On February 10, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer to CMS' Amended Complaint that included a counterclaim requesting this Court enter an Order with an independent final legal determination that CMS violated the procedural and substantive requirements of the IDEA, state law, and state and federal regulations, thus denying A.B. a FAPE; order CMS to provide A.B. with compensatory special education and related services for the amount of time the Court determines a FAPE was denied; order CMS to reimburse A.B.'s parents for any expenses incurred as a result of CMS' failure to meet the requirements of the IDEA, state law, and state and federal regulations, including but not limited to, the costs and expenses incurred for A.B. to attend any private therapies, and the tuition and all associated costs and expenses, including transportation, incurred for A.B. to attend a treatment center in New Hampshire and a therapeutic boarding school in Utah. (DE 27 at 34).
On March 2, 2022, CMS filed a Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (DE 31). In its Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim, CMS argues that this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Defendants' counterclaim
because Defendants failed to exhaust all administrative remedies under IDEA prior to asserting their counterclaim. (DE 31). Additionally, CMS argues that none of the exceptions to IDEA's exhaustion requirement are applicable. (DE 31). In response, Defendants argue that after Johnson claims are exhausted once a student and her parents go through the administrative process prior to filing in federal court. (DE 33 at 10). Defendants further argue that if the counterclaim was not exhausted during the administrative process then an exception to the exhaustion requirement applies. (Id. at 12).
B. Factual Background
A.B. was enrolled as a student in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School District (“CMS District”) from 2005 until 2015. (DE 12 at 687). In second grade, A.B. began exhibiting problematic behaviors, including self-injurious behaviors, expressing suicidal ideations, and crying in school due to expressed anxiety. (DE 12 at 135 ¶ 7). From 2011 through 2014, A.B. attended middle school in the CMS District. (DE 12 at 135 ¶ 11). A.B.'s anxiety and crying during classes increased and continued throughout middle school. (DE 12 at 135 ¶ 14). A.B.'s grades also significantly declined in middle school. (DE 12 at 207-09). Additionally, A.B. was absent a total of 166 times-114 excused and 52 excused. (DE 12 at 256-61). On multiple occasions, A.B. was hospitalized throughout middle school and made threats of suicide while at school. (DE 12 at 211-48; id. at 135 ¶¶ 15-17). In response to A.B.'s suicide threats, CMS required A.B.'s parents to have A.B. assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist before allowing A.B. to return to school. (DE 12 at 135 ¶ 17; id. at 246-48).
On February 26, 2013, A.B.'s Section 504 team reconvened. (DE 12 at 252-54). Prior to the meeting, A.B.'s father provided the team with an email from A.B.'s psychologist, Dr. Morganstein. J.B. explained that he wished to discuss the topics raised in Dr. Morganstein's email during the 504 team meeting. (DE 12 at 136 ¶ 24; id. at 255). Dr. Morganstein's email stated, in
part: “We understand that with her specific diagnoses, [A.B.] qualifies as OHI and is eligible for an IEP - is tutoring covered by an IEP? Is there something that is covered by an IEP that can benefit her?” (DE 12 at 255). No. one from CMS convened a Referral Meeting to discuss A.B.'s eligibility for an IEP. (DE 12 at 136 ¶ 25).
On September 4, 2013, A.B.'s 504 team convened to review her 504 Plan. (DE 12 at 262-63). Again, the team determined that A.B. required a BIP. (DE 12 at 262). After the September 4, 2013 meeting, J.B. signed a parental notice form and checked a box directly above his signature stating “I have received a copy of the Parent-Student Rights and Procedural Safeguards.” (DE 12 at 588). Despite A.B.'s eligibility for a BIP, excessive absences, hospitalizations due to the impact of her disabilities, and below average grades, no one from CMS referred A.B. for an evaluation to determine if she qualified for services under the IDEA. (DE 12 at 136-37 ¶¶ 16, 30).
On November 4, 2015, A.B. attempted to commit suicide at school. (DE 12 at 275). The next day the assistant principal of A.B.'s school contacted A.B.'s father to inform him that A.B. had attempted suicide at school, and A.B.'s parents needed to plan for A.B. to attend school elsewhere because the school was not prepared to deal with A.B. (DE 12 at 137 ¶ 38).
At the advice of medical professionals, A.B.'s parents removed A.B. from CMS and enrolled her at Mountain Valley Treatment Center, a short-term residential treatment center located in New Hampshire, in December 2015. (DE 12 at 137 ¶ 45). A.B. remained at Mountain Valley until May 2016.[1] (DE 12 at 137 ¶ 46). Following her discharge from Mountain Valley, A.B. began attending Maple Lake Academy, a therapeutic boarding school located in Utah. (DE 12 at 137 ¶ 47). A.B. returned home in December 2017. (DE 12 at 137 ¶ 49). As of March 2018, A.B. lived at home, remained enrolled at Maple Lake Academy, and took classes online. (DE 12 at 137 ¶¶ 49-
50). Throughout this time period, from 2005 to 2018, CMS never attempted to schedule a referral meeting to determine if A.B. should be evaluated for services under the IDEA. (DE 12 at 137 ¶ 51).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Courts use a...
To continue reading
Request your trial