JB vs. Schuylkill Intermediate Unit

IN THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Sufficiency Determination and Dismissal

ODR File No. 2816-1112AS

Child’s Name: J.B.1 Date of Birth: [redacted]

Parties Parent

Schuylkill Intermediate Unit 29 17 Maple Avenue
PO Box 130
Mar Lin, PA 17951-0130

Representative

Koert Wehberg, Esquire
Gabe Labella, Esquire
Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19107

Karl Romberger, Esquire
Sweet Stevens Katz and Williams, LLP 331 East Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18901

Date of Decision: February 14, 2012

Hearing Officer: Brian Jason Ford

Introduction

Before me is the [redacted] (IU’s) Sufficiency Challenge. The Sufficiency Challenge is somewhat unusual in that the IU argues that it is not the Student’s local educational agency (LEA). For reasons set forth herein, I find that the IU is not the Student’s LEA and dismiss the instant matter for that reason.

Procedural History

The Parent filed a single complaint against both the IU and [School District A] on January 26, 2012. When a complaint names two respondents, the Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) treats the situation as if two identical complaints have been filed. The instant matter, ODR No. 2816-1112AS, the IU is the only respondent. [School District A] is the only respondent in ODR No. 2782-1112AS.

The IU filed its sufficiency challenge on February 9, 2012.

J-B-Schuylkill-Intermediate-Unit-29-ODRNo-2816-1112AS

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.