Nadar et al v. Bentonville School District et al

Filing 14

ORDER granting 9 defendants' motion to dismiss; and plaintiffs' amended complaint 6 is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 10/14/2014. (ljb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ARVINTHAN NADAR and PREMA THANGAVEL, as Parents of Child Doe v. PLAINTIFFS CASE NO: 4:14CV363 BSM BENTONVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT; TONY WOOD, and the ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEFENDANTS ORDER The motion filed by defendants Tony Wood and the Arkansas Department of Education to dismiss plaintiffs’ lawsuit as untimely [Doc. No. 9] is granted and their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied as moot. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice because their original complaint was untimely filed. Plaintiffs, Arvinthan Nadar and Prema Thangavel filed an administrative due process claim against the Bentonville School District on December 4, 2013. The claim was filed with the Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") claiming a violation of the Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”). The claim was dismissed by an administrative hearing officer on March 13, 2014. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on June 17, 2014, seeking reversal of the hearing officer's decision. Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because they were filed more than ninety days after the hearing officer’s decision was rendered. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415 (i)(2)(B) (2004); Smith v. D.C., 496 F. Supp. 2d 125, 128 (D.D.C. 2007). Arkansas does not have an explicit time limitation for filing lawsuits similar to this one. Therefore, the ninety day limitations period applies. Id. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 9] is granted and plaintiffs’ amended complaint [Doc. No. 6] is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of October 2014. ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?