Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PJ CASE 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

PJ CASE 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Ratings: (0)|Views: 40|Likes:
Published by mtuccitto
December 2013 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of P.J. et al vs. the Connecticut State Board of Education
December 2013 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the case of P.J. et al vs. the Connecticut State Board of Education

More info:

Published by: mtuccitto on Jan 07, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/01/2014

pdf

text

original

 
10
3586
cv
P.J.,
 
et
 
al.
 
v.
 
CT 
 
Board
 
of 
 
Ed.,
 
et
 
al.
 
UNITED
 
STATES
 
COURT
 
OF
 
APPEALSFOR
 
THE
 
SECOND
 
CIRCUIT
SUMMARY
 
ORDER
RULINGS
 
BY
 
SUMMARY
 
ORDER
 
DO
 
NOT
 
HAVE
 
PRECEDENTIAL
 
EFFECT.
 
CITATION
 
TO
 
ASUMMARY
 
ORDER
 
FILED
 
ON
 
OR
 
AFTER
 
JANUARY
 
1,
 
2007,
 
IS
 
PERMITTED
 
AND
 
IS
 
GOVERNED
 
BYFEDERAL
 
RULE
 
OF
 
APPELLATE
 
PROCEDURE
 
32.1
 
AND
 
THIS
 
COURT’S
 
LOCAL
 
RULE
 
32.1.1.
 
WHENCITING
 
A
 
SUMMARY
 
ORDER
 
IN
 
A
 
DOCUMENT
 
FILED
 
WITH
 
THIS
 
COURT,
 
A
 
PARTY
 
MUST
 
CITEEITHER
 
THE
 
FEDERAL
 
APPENDIX
 
OR
 
AN
 
ELECTRONIC
 
DATABASE
 
(WITH
 
THE
 
NOTATION“SUMMARY
 
ORDER”).
 
A
 
PARTY
 
CITING
 
TO
 
A
 
SUMMARY
 
ORDER
 
MUST
 
SERVE
 
A
 
COPY
 
OF
 
IT
 
ONANY
 
PARTY
 
NOT
 
REPRESENTED
 
BY
 
COUNSEL.
 
At
 
a
 
stated
 
term
 
of
 
the
 
United
 
States
 
Court
 
of
 
Appeals
 
for
 
the
 
Second
 
Circuit,
1
held
 
at
 
the
 
Thurgood
 
Marshall
 
United
 
States
 
Courthouse,
 
40
 
Foley
 
Square,
 
in
 
the
2
City
 
of
 
New
 
York,
 
on
 
the
 
23
rd
 
day
 
of
 
December,
 
two
 
thousand
 
thirteen.
34
Present:
5
D
EBRA
 
A
NN
 
L
IVINGSTON
 ,
6
R
AYMOND
 
 J.
 
L
OHIER
 ,
 
 J
R
.,
7
S
USAN
 
L.
 
C
ARNEY
 ,
89
Circuit
 
 Judges.
 
10
_____________________________________
1112
P.J.,
 
By
 
&
 
Through
 
His
 
Parents
 
&
 
Next
13
Friends
 
Mr.
 
&
 
Mrs.
 
W.
 
 J.,
 
et
 
al.
 ,
1415
Plaintiffs
 Appellants
 , No.
 
10
3586
cv
1617
I
AN
 
I
AN
 
K
ATZ
 ,
 
 by
 
and
 
through
 
his
 
parents
 
and
 
18
next
 
friends
 
Mr.
 
and
 
Mrs.
 
Mark
 
Katz,
 
et
 
al.
 ,
 
1920
Intervenors
Plaintiffs
21
 Appellants
 ,
2223
Case: 10-3586 Document: 222-1 Page: 1 12/23/2013 1120632 8
1 of 11
 
v.
12
CT
 
B
OARD
 
OF
 
E
D
.,
 
E
DUCATION
 ,
 
D
EPT
 
OF
 ,
3
T
IROZZI
 ,
 
G
ERALD
 ,
 
C
OMM
.,
 
45
Defendants
 Appellees
.
6
_____________________________________
78
For
 
Plaintiffs
Appellants: D
AVID
 
C.
 
S
HAW
 ,
 
Bloomfield,
 
CT.
910
For
 
Defendants
Appellees: D
ARREN
 
P.
 
C
UNNINGHAM
 ,
 
Assistant
11
Attorney
 
General,
 
 for
 
George
 
 Jepsen,
12
Attorney
 
General
 
of
 
the
 
State
 
of
13
Connecticut,
 
Hartford,
 
CT.
1415
Appeal
 
from
 
orders
 
of
 
the
 
United
 
States
 
District
 
Court
 
for
 
the
 
District
 
of
16
Connecticut
 
(Robert
 
N.
 
Chatigny,
 
 J.
)
 
denying
 
Appellants’
 
motion
 
to
 
compel
17
discovery
 
and
 
motion
 
alleging
 
substantial
 
noncompliance.
18
UPON
 
DUE
 
CONSIDERATION,
 
IT
 
IS
 
HEREBY
 
ORDERED,
 
ADJUDGED,
19
AND
 
DECREED
 
that
 
the
 
orders
 
of
 
the
 
district
 
court
 
are
 
AFFIRMED
.
 
20
In
 
2002,
 
the
 
parties
 
to
 
this
 
action
 
entered
 
into
 
a
 
settlement
 
agreement
 
(the
21
“Agreement”)
 
concerning
 
Appellees’
 
alleged
 
noncompliance
 
with
 
the
 
Individuals
22
with
 
Disabilities
 
Education
 
Act
 
(“IDEA”),
 
20
 
U.S.C.
 
§
 
1400
 
et
 
seq.
 
The
 
Agreement
23
enumerated
 
five
 
goals
 
intended
 
to
 
encourage
 
Appellees’
 
compliance
 
with
 
IDEA
 
as
24
it
 
concerned
 
students
 
with
 
“intellectual
 
disabilities.”
 
These
 
goals
 
were
 
to
 
“increase
25
2
Case: 10-3586 Document: 222-1 Page: 2 12/23/2013 1120632 8
2 of 11
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
the
 
percent”
 
of
 
students
 
with
 
intellectual
 
disabilities
 
placed
 
in
 
regular
 
classes,
1
“reduc[e]”
 
the
 
discriminatory
 
identification
 
of
 
students
 
with
 
intellectual
 
disabilities,
2
“increase
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
the
 
mean
 
and
 
median
 
percent
 
of
 
the
 
school
 
day
 
 
students
 
with
3
intellectual
 
disabilities
 
spent
 
with
 
non
disabled
 
students,
 
“increase
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
the
 
percent”
4
of
 
students
 
with
 
intellectual
 
disabilities
 
who
 
attended
 
the
 
school
 
they
 
would
 
attend
5
if
 
not
 
disabled,
 
and
 
“increase
 
.
 
.
 
.
 
the
 
percent”
 
of
 
students
 
with
 
intellectual
6
disabilities
 
who
 
participated
 
in
 
extra
curricular
 
activities
 
with
 
non
disabled
7
students.
 
The
 
Agreement
 
also
 
contained
 
a
 
number
 
of
 
provisions
 
to
 
facilitate
8
realization
 
of
 
the
 
Agreement’s
 
goals,
 
including
 
monitoring
 
and
 
parental
 
outreach
9
requirements,
 
and
 
a
 
section
 
concerning
 
the
 
establishment
 
of
 
an
 
expert
 
advisory
10
panel.
 
The
 
Agreement
 
finally
 
provided
 
that
 
the
 
district
 
court
 
would
 
retain
11
 jurisdiction
 
“for
 
enforcement”
 
of
 
the
 
Agreement
 
for
 
five
 
years,
 
 but
 
limited
 
the
12
court’s
 
 jurisdiction
 
to
 
reviewing
 
“motions
 
for
 
substantial
 
non
compliance”
 
in
 
the
13
subsequent
 
three
 
years.
 
The
 
court’s
 
 jurisdiction
 
would
 
end
 
after
 
eight
 
years,
 
that
 
is,
14
in
 
2010.
 
15
In
 
2009,
 
Appellants
 
filed
 
a
 
motion
 
asserting
 
that
 
Appellees
 
were
 
in
 
substantial
16
noncompliance
 
with
 
the
 
Agreement.
1
 
Appellants
 
also
 
sought
 
discovery
 
to
 
press
17
1
Appellants
 
filed
 
their
 
initial
 
motion
 
asserting
 
substantial
 
noncompliance
 
in
 
2008,
 
 but
 
themotion
 
was
 
denied
 
“for
 
administrative
 
purposes”
 
without
 
prejudice
 
to
 
refiling.
 
See,
 
e.g.
 ,
P.J.,
 
et
 
al.
 
v.
 
Education,
 
et
 
al.,
 
No.
 
91
 
Civ.
 
180
 
(RNC)
 
(D.
 
Conn.),
 
Doc.
 
No.
 
571.
 
3
Case: 10-3586 Document: 222-1 Page: 3 12/23/2013 1120632 8
3 of 11

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->