Opinion
CV 00-835-AS
December, 2000
DIANE WISCARSON Portland, OR Attorney for Plaintiffs.
ANDREA HUNGERFORD RICHARD G. COHN-LEE West Linn, OR Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Acexhaust their administrative remedies. See generally Doe v. Arizona Dept. of Educ., 111 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing IDEA exhaustion requirements). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.
The Court does not, however, adopt the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation with respect to Plaintiffs' second and third claims for relief. The hearings officer believed she did not have jurisdiction to enforce the mediated settlement agreement and, therefore, declined to address Plaintiffs' argument that Defendant breached the agreement. The hearings officer advised Plaintiffs to "seek relief in another forum." Plaintiffs did that by filing their second and third claims for relief in conjunction with their appeal of the hearing officer's dismissal of their request for a due process hearing under the IDEA.
In recommending dismissal of Plaintiffs' second and third claims for relief, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies regarding their claims for breach of the settlement agreement and stated Plaintiffs were required to pursue those claims through either a due process hearing or a state complaint process. The Findings and Recommendation suggest the hearing officer dismissed Plaintiffs' request for a due process hearing on the settlement agreement because she believed Plaintiffs could bring that claim in a state complaint procedure. This Court disagrees with that characterization of the hearing officer's ruling. The hearing officer ruled only that she lacked jurisdiction to enforce the agreement; she did not state Plaintiffs could bring an enforcement action in a state complaint proceding.
This Court is uncertain of the basis for the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that: 1) Plaintiffs, who allege breach of a mediated IDEA settlement agreement, must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking enforcement of the agreement in a judicial forum; and 2) a hearing officer has authority to enforce such an agreement in either a due process hearing or a state complaint proceeding. The Court respectfully requests the Magistrate Judge reconsider his recommendation in light of this Order and clarify the legal basis for his recommendation if he remains persuaded dismissal is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS FOR RECONSIDERATION the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (#19) insofar as they relate to dismissal of Plaintiffs' second and third claims for relief.
The Court notes Defendant moved to dismiss the second and third claims for relief on an unrelated ground and, therefore, neither Plaintiffs nor Defendant have briefed these precise issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.