The two enumerated exceptions to the statute of limitations are further confined to require that any specific misrepresentation or withholding of information must also prevent the parents from filing a due process complaint.
Petitioners’ Motion asserts three alleged misrepresentations under the under exception (i) and one alleged withholding of information under exception (ii) as the basis for their position that the statute of limitations period should not apply. Petitioners’ proposed exceptions are:
(i) The District misrepresented to the Parent that simply passing J.P. on to kindergarten after a failed pre-K experience would resolve his educational issues;
(ii) The District represented to the Parent that simply passing J.P. on the first …show more content…
(F.T.C. v. Nat’l Bus. Consultants, Inc., 376 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004).) Regarding the exceptions, the burden is shifted to Petitioner to establish that the exceptions to the statute of limitations are met and the Court must undertake a “highly factual inquiry” to determine if application of either exception is warranted J.L. ex rel. J.L. v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist., CIV.A. 06-1652, 2009 WL 1119608, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2009). Texas Hearing Officer Lynn E. Rubinett’s 2011 decision supports a position that the burden of proof to support the applicability of any exception to the one-year statute of limitations on the Petitioner/party seeking the exception. (Student v. Desoto Independent School District; TEA Docket No. 164-SE-0311 (2011). ) As did, Texas Hearing Officer Ann Vevier Lockwood who found that “Petitioner must establish not that the school district’s provision of FAPE was objectively inappropriate but instead that school district personnel subjectively determined Student was not receiving FAPE and intentionally misrepresented that fact to his parents.” (Student v. Beaumont Independent School District: TEA Docket No. 296-SE-0710 (2011).) And Texas Hearing Officer Deborah Heaton McElvaney in a 2010 decision in which she held, “Student did not establish any exception to the one-year statute of limitations…” (Student v. Beaumont Independent School District; TEA Docket No. 076-SE-1209 (2010).) Administrative Law Judge Morgan Brooke-Devlin of Virginia noted in a 2013 special education due process decision “I find that the parents have not sustained their burden of proving an exception to the two year statute of limitations.” (In re: Student with a Disability; 64 IDELR 121 (2013).) (Emphasis added.) Administrative Hearing Officer/Judge
Petitioners’ Motion asserts three alleged misrepresentations under the under exception (i) and one alleged withholding of information under exception (ii) as the basis for their position that the statute of limitations period should not apply. Petitioners’ proposed exceptions are:
(i) The District misrepresented to the Parent that simply passing J.P. on to kindergarten after a failed pre-K experience would resolve his educational issues;
(ii) The District represented to the Parent that simply passing J.P. on the first …show more content…
(F.T.C. v. Nat’l Bus. Consultants, Inc., 376 F.3d 317 (5th Cir. 2004).) Regarding the exceptions, the burden is shifted to Petitioner to establish that the exceptions to the statute of limitations are met and the Court must undertake a “highly factual inquiry” to determine if application of either exception is warranted J.L. ex rel. J.L. v. Ambridge Area Sch. Dist., CIV.A. 06-1652, 2009 WL 1119608, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2009). Texas Hearing Officer Lynn E. Rubinett’s 2011 decision supports a position that the burden of proof to support the applicability of any exception to the one-year statute of limitations on the Petitioner/party seeking the exception. (Student v. Desoto Independent School District; TEA Docket No. 164-SE-0311 (2011). ) As did, Texas Hearing Officer Ann Vevier Lockwood who found that “Petitioner must establish not that the school district’s provision of FAPE was objectively inappropriate but instead that school district personnel subjectively determined Student was not receiving FAPE and intentionally misrepresented that fact to his parents.” (Student v. Beaumont Independent School District: TEA Docket No. 296-SE-0710 (2011).) And Texas Hearing Officer Deborah Heaton McElvaney in a 2010 decision in which she held, “Student did not establish any exception to the one-year statute of limitations…” (Student v. Beaumont Independent School District; TEA Docket No. 076-SE-1209 (2010).) Administrative Law Judge Morgan Brooke-Devlin of Virginia noted in a 2013 special education due process decision “I find that the parents have not sustained their burden of proving an exception to the two year statute of limitations.” (In re: Student with a Disability; 64 IDELR 121 (2013).) (Emphasis added.) Administrative Hearing Officer/Judge