Lake Cent. Sch. Corp. v. Jacobs & Maciejewski, et. al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81424 (N.D. Ind. July 26, 2011)
Jul 26, 2011
OUTCOME: Client Victory: The Court denied Hoekstra's Motion
Plaintiff, Lake Central School Corporation ("LCSC") entered into an agreement with Jacobs and Maciejewski, A.I.A. and Associates, Architects, P.C. ("JMA") to provide design and construction drawing and... specifications for a project known as the LCSC Mechanical System Replacement at Homan Elementary School ("Project"). JMA in turn contracted with WM. J. Hoekstra, Engineers, Inc. ("Hoekstra") to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for the Project. Unsatisfied with the performance of the agreement, LCSC brought suit against JMA. JMA brought a counter-claim against LCSC and also a third-party complaint against Hoekstra. Thereafter LCSC sought leave to amend its complaint, and it also added a claim against Hoekstra.
Hoekstra filed a Motion to Dismiss LCSC's claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hoekstra alleged that Count II of the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed. LCSC disagreed and asserted that Hoekstra was liable for breach of contract to LCSC as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between JMA and Hoekstra, and Hoekstra contended that LCSC was not a third-party beneficiary of that contract.
Education
Farzana K. v. Ind. Dep't of Educ., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101331 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 30, 2009)
Oct 30, 2009
OUTCOME: Client Victory: The District Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to Enforce Stay-Put
Plaintiff's son, S.K., was a seventeen year-old student with autism spectrum disorder and language difficulties. As an autistic child, S.K. began receiving special education services at age two through... early intervention services. Beginning at age three, he attended preschool programs at both the West Lake Special Education Cooperative and the School City of East Chicago. When S.K. was five years old, the School Town of Munster and the West Lake Special Education Cooperative ("School Defendants") determined that the least restrictive environment for S.K. was at a residential facility. On March 7, 2005, an Independent Hearing Officer (IHO) found that the least restrictive educational placement for S.K. was in the West Lake Cooperative at the Grimmer Middle School autism structured program. The IHO also ordered S.K. moved from Heartspring to the West Lake public school program, where he would live with the Plaintiff during the off school hours. The IHO did not require supported living services for S.K. during the hours when he was not in school. On May 1, 2006, SK began participating in programs at West Lake's Grimmer Middle School consistent with the educational services outlined in the IHO-Approved IEP. At the end of the school day, S.K. lived with the Plaintiff and did not receive supported living services during the off school hours. In her appeal to the District Court, the Parent sought to overturn the IHO's March 7, 2005, finding that the West Lake Cooperative, without community-based services, was the proper placement for S.K.
The Parent filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to enforce the "stay-put placement" under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), providing that SK's placement during her appeal should remain as previously set forth in the August 19, 2004, IEP, requiring residential placement for SK.
The Defendants argued that, by filing her stay-put motion three years after the original stay-put placement expired with the dismissal of the Plaintiff's Complaint against the School Defendants, and twenty-five months after the Court of Appeals remanded the case, the Plaintiff waived and abandoned her right to reinstate the original stay-put placement. The Defendants also argued that the Plaintiff's request for S.K.'s placement at a residential facility contradicts the intent of § 1415(j) because S.K.'s status quo since May 1, 2006, was in a structured autism program in the West Lake Cooperative while living at home with the Plaintiff. The Defendants further contended that the Plaintiff consented to the August 2007 IEP, which set forth the currently implemented placement. In addition, the Defendants argued that the equitable doctrine of laches bars the Plaintiff's attempt to reinstate the stay-put placement at a residential facility and assert that the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary restraining order is now controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 rather than the automatic provisions of § 1415(j).
Education
Robert Brown v. Bartholomew Consolidated School Corporation, 442 F.3d 588 (7th Cir. 2006)
Mar 29, 2006
OUTCOME: Client Victory: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court and the case was remanded with direction that it be dismissed as moot
Appellant parents sought review of a judgment from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, which ruled in favor of appellee school district with re...spect to the parents' challenge, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C.S. § 1400 et seq., to the individualized educational program (IEP) that the school district had established for their autistic son. During the appeal process, the parents moved and enrolled their son in a different school district where they agreed to a new IEP for their son's upcoming school year. The School argued that the case was moot and should be dismissed.
