School Board asserts IDEA hearing examiner erred

Where a student alleged that the Henrico County School Board failed to provide her with a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE, the hearing examiner found in her favor but nevertheless denied her damages and she filed suit challenging that decision, the school board may assert a counterclaim in which it seeks reversal of the hearing officer’s decision to the extent that it was adverse to the board.

Background

A.C., a minor, by and through R.C., as parent and next friend, alleges that the Henrico County School Board has not provided her with a FAPE as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA. In a brief, one-paragraph opinion, the hearing officer stated that plaintiff’s evidence was “the most credible and the burden of proof has been satisfied.” The hearing officer further said that “the student and her parents are the prevailing party.”

Despite that ruling, however, the hearing officer denied and dismissed plaintiff’s requests for damages, including damages for reimbursement for compensatory damages, special education and related services. In this lawsuit, plaintiff alleges that the “hearing officer’s decision was not regularly made because after the hearing officer determined that Henrico County could not provide a [FAPE], he determined that there was no evidence that a private placement would benefit the child.”

Defendant has filed a counterclaim in which it seeks reversal of the hearing officer’s decision to the extent that it was adverse to defendant. Defendant asserts that the “Hearing Officer committed various procedural errors during the course of the hearing and his subsequent decision-making” and “[t]hese errors yielded a substantive result that was flawed” to the extent that the decision was adverse to defendant. Plaintiff has moved to dismiss the counterclaim as untimely and for lack of jurisdiction.

Standard

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a), counterclaims must be brought with the original answer and “[a] defendant must serve an answer … within 21 days.” Thus, a counterclaim that is not filed within 21 days is untimely and thus must be dismissed.

In the context of IDEA cases, “[a]ny party aggrieved by the findings and decision [of a hearing officer] … shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section[.]” Subsection 1415(i)(2)(B) states that “the party bringing the action shall have 90 days from the date of the decision of the hearing officer to bring such action[.]”

In Kirkpatrick v. Lenoir County Board of Education, 216 F.3d 380 (4th Cir. 2000), the court explicitly held that an action filed in federal court pursuant to the IDEA is an original action and thus the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure determine the timeliness of any counterclaim filed by the defendant. Counterclaims relate back to the time of the filing of the complaint.

Analysis

Plaintiff brought this action under the IDEA and so the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure determine the timeliness of a counterclaim filed by the defendant. Defendant timely removed this matter to federal court, timely filed a Rule 12 motion in response to the original complaint and timely filed another Rule 12 motion in response to the amended complaint. Defendant filed its counterclaim within 21 days of plaintiff filing her Amended Complaint. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant had no duty to file its answer and counterclaim on any date earlier than it did. Accordingly, defendant’s compulsory counterclaim was timely and plaintiff’s motion to dismiss will be denied.

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss counterclaim denied.

A.C. v. Henrico County School Board, Case No. 3:22-cv-336, Oct. 13, 2022. EDVA at Richmond (Hudson). VLW 022-3-467. 6 pp.