A.S. et al v. WILLIAM PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO.10) IS GRANTED; DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DOC. NO.10) IS DENIED AS MOOT; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (DOC. NO.23) IS GRANTED NUNC PRO TUNC; PLAINTIFFS� 39; MOTION TO AMEND REPLY (DOC. NO.31) IS GRANTED; PLAINTIFFS' SUBSTANTIVE CLAIMS UNDER IDEA ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST; PLAINTIFFS' DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL IDEA CLAIMS REGARDING THE DUE PROCESS HEARING HELD O N 1/23/2013, ARE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; AND THE CLERK SHALL MARK THE CASE CLOSED. THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. NO.15) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/10/2014. 4/11/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED(kk, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA A. S., a minor, et al., Plaintiffs, : : : : : : : : : : v. WILLIAM PENN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-2312 O R D E R AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2014, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10), which the Court has treated as a Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), is GRANTED; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as moot; (3) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Reply (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED; (5) Plaintiffs’ substantive claims under the IDEA are DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust; (6) Plaintiffs’ due process and procedural IDEA claims regarding the due process hearing held on January 23, 2013, are DISMISSED with prejudice; and (7) The clerk shall mark the case closed. It is further ordered that Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Eduardo C. Robreno EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. 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?