Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-CV-0694 (DMC).
July 28, 2008
OPINION
This matter comes before the Court upon cross-motions by Plaintiffs L.Z. and S.Z. (collectively "Parents") on behalf of their daughter Plaintiff K.Z. ("K.Z." collectively with Parents, "Plaintiffs") and Defendant Springfield Board of Education ("Defendant") for summary judgment. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78, no oral argument was heard. After carefully considering the submissions of the parties, and based upon the following, it is the finding of this Court that both motions for summary judgment are denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The facts set-forth in this Opinion are taken from the Parties' statements in their respective moving papers.
Both motions come before the Court as a result of a dispute between the parties over proper educational care for K.Z., a minor child who is the daughter of the Parents. K.Z. was evaluated by Dr. Beth L. Haessig, a psychologist, who found that K.Z. suffers from Aspergers Disorder, and those symptoms include difficulties with social interaction, pragmatic language and prevalence of self-directed behaviors. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs never provided a written medical diagnosis of K.Z.'s condition during the 2005-2006 school year; Plaintiffs deny this allegation. On April 14, 2005, Plaintiffs requested that Defendant's Child Study Team ("Team") evaluate K.Z. K.Z. was evaluated on April 26, 2005 by a social worker for Defendant as well as a speech and language therapist. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs told the Team that they would have a neurodevelopmental evaluation conducted for K.Z. and provide same to the Team. Plaintiffs deny this allegation.
On July 25, 2005, Defendant held an eligibility conference/Individual Education Plan ("IEP") meeting and determined that K.Z. was eligible for special education and related services. Both parties agree that an offer was made to place K.Z. in a special education preschool class for two and one-half hours per day, five days per week for the 2005-2006 school year. The parties dispute Defendant's allegation that there was an offer in the IEP that K.Z. would participate for part of the week in a general education pre-Kindergarten class. The IEP also contained goals and objectives for K.Z. to improve, such as maintaining eye contact, expression of feelings in words and fine motor skills; however, Plaintiffs argue that the goals laid out in the IEP were neither specific nor measurable. Further, the IEP called for two sessions per week of speech and language training as well as one session per week of occupational therapy. The IEP called for K.Z. to participate in a social skills group once per week. Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs expressed no concerns or dissatisfaction with the proposed IEP; Plaintiffs deny this allegation.
Plaintiffs, due to their alleged dissatisfaction with the proposed IEP, rejected it in a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel on August 8, 2005. Defendant was informed in this letter that Plaintiff Parents were unilaterally placing K.Z. in an applied behavior analysis ("ABA") program with a shadow aide (individual assigned to a special education teacher or family to assist a special needs child) at Temple Sha'arey Shalom. Further, Plaintiff Parents stated they would obtain up to forty hours of applied behavior analysis per week. Plaintiff Parents also seek eight hours of coordination by a behavior analyst as well as occupational therapy and speech services by their private provider. On August 29, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement for their unilaterally provided services, alleging that Defendant denied K.Z. a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") by not providing her with a program that met her individualized needs.
The parties also dispute the circumstances of a possible September 12, 2005 meeting; Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs cancelled the meeting while Plaintiffs allege they never even agreed to attend the meeting as they had already filed for due process. K.Z. had not received special education and related services from the district in the 2005-2006 school year.
The due process filing led to the matter being heard in Administrative Law Court with Plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for the costs incurred by unilaterally placing K.Z. in an appropriate educational environment. Defendant filed a motion for partial summary decision, which Plaintiffs opposed. The Honorable Jesse H. Strauss, A.L.J., issued a decision granting Defendant's motion on November 13, 2006. Plaintiffs appealed this decision by filing a complaint in this Court alleging erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law at the Administrative Law level. Defendant answered and both parties then moved for summary judgment.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
III. DISCUSSION
See56Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317330See id. Id. See56see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.475 U.S. 574586Schoch v. First Fid. Bancorporation912 F.2d 654657Newsome v. Admin. Office of the Courts of the State of N.J.103 F. Supp.2d 807815aff'd51 Fed. Appx. 76Watts v. Univ. of Del.622 F.2d 4750 Matsushita
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, it is the finding of this Court that both parties' motions for summary judgment are denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.