(a) General. Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made under §§ 300.507 through 300.513 or §§ 300.530 through 300.534 who does not have the right to an appeal under § 300.514(b), and any party aggrieved by the findings and decision under § 300.514(b), has the right to bring a civil action with respect to the due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing under § 300.507 or §§ 300.530 through 300.532. The action may be brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy.
(b) Time limitation. The party bringing the action shall have 90 days from the date of the decision of the hearing officer or, if applicable, the decision of the State review official, to file a civil action, or, if the State has an explicit time limitation for bringing civil actions under Part B of the Act, in the time allowed by that State law.
(c) Additional requirements. In any action brought under paragraph (a) of this section, the court—
(1) Receives the records of the administrative proceedings;
(2) Hears additional evidence at the request of a party; and
(3) Basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, grants the relief that the court determines to be appropriate.
(d) Jurisdiction of district courts. The district courts of the United States have jurisdiction of actions brought under section 615 of the Act without regard to the amount in controversy.
(e) Rule of construction. Nothing in this part restricts or limits the rights, procedures, and remedies available under the Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, except that before the filing of a civil action under these laws seeking relief that is also available under section 615 of the Act, the procedures under §§ 300.507 and 300.514 must be exhausted to the same extent as would be required had the action been brought under section 615 of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(2) and (3)(A), 1415(l))
Notes of Decisions
Brown Ex Rel. E.M. v. Dist. of Columbia, 568 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2), (i)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (a). The reviewing court “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant…”
Hawkins Ex Rel. D.C. v. Dist. of Columbia, 539 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2), (i)(S)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (a). The reviewing court “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant…”
O.O. Ex Rel. Pabo v. Dist. of Columbia, 573 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 1415 (i)(2), (i)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (a). The reviewing court “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant…”
Q. C-C. v. Dist. of Columbia, 164 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D.D.C. 2016).
“The IDEA provides that the reviewing court “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court…”
N.W. v. Dist. of Columbia, 253 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2017).
“§ 1415 (i)(2)(C); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (c). During the district court’s review of the due process hearing, “[a] motion for summary judgment operates as a motion for judgment based on the evidence comprising the record and any additional evidence the Court may receive.”
M.G. v. Dist. of Columbia, 246 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2017).
“Under the IDEA, “the [reviewing] court (i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court…”
El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R. Ex Rel. R.R., 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009).
“§ 1415(i)(3)(A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (d). The statute further contemplates that, if the parties are able to resolve their dispute at the resolution meeting, they should “execute a legally binding agreement that is .”
Lopez-Young v. Dist. of Columbia, 211 F. Supp. 3d 42 (D.D.C. 2016).
“The IDEA provides that the reviewing court “(i) shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings; (ii) shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party; and (iii) basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court…”
Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 559 F. Supp. 2d 548 (E.D. Pa. 2008).
“102(a)(xx); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 . 5 In sum, non-Blunt individual plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the IDEA, ADA, RA, and the Public School Code.”
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(a) — 1 case
— 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(b) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.