P.M.B. and M.B., Individually and as next Friends of C.M.B., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Ridgefield Board of Education, Defendant-Appellee.
Argued: December 9, 2019
Appeal from the United States District Court For the District
from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (Underhill, J.) dismissing
plaintiffs-appellants' complaint under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et
seq. Plaintiffs-appellants contend that the district court
erred in holding that their complaint was time-barred.
A. McMahon, The Law Offices of Gerry McMahon, LLC, Danbury,
Connecticut, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
J. Murphy (Linda L. Yoder, on the brief), Shipman &
Goodwin LLP, Hartford, Connecticut, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Sack, Chin, and Bianco, Circuit Judges.
P.M.B. and M.B., individually and on behalf of student C.M.B.
(collectively "plaintiffs"), appeal a judgment of
the district court, entered April 5, 2019, dismissing their
complaint against defendant-appellee Ridgefield Board of
Education ("Ridgefield") for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Plaintiffs alleged that Ridgefield violated the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §
1400 et seq. (the "IDEA"), by failing to
provide a public education that met the special education
needs of C.M.B. Plaintiffs sought judicial review of a final
agency determination rendered by an Impartial Hearing Officer
(the "IHO") assigned by the Connecticut State
Department of Education (the "CSDOE"). The
IHO's final opinion and order (the "Order"),
mailed on July 20, 2018, concluded that Ridgefield satisfied
its obligations to plaintiffs under the IDEA and denied
plaintiffs' request for reimbursement for the cost of
sending C.M.B. to private school.
commenced this action on October 18, 2018, ninety days after
the mailing date of the Order. Ridgefield moved to dismiss
the complaint as time-barred pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the 45-day filing
requirement set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-183(c)
applies to appeals of final agency decisions in Connecticut
under the IDEA. The district court agreed. On appeal,
plaintiffs contend that the district court erred because
Conn. Gen. State § 4-183(c) applies only to appeals
filed in Connecticut state court and not to appeals filed in
federal court. We affirm.
Standard of Review
review de novo the district court's dismissal of
a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). See Sunrise
Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains, 769 F.3d 118, 121
(2d Cir. 2014).
The IDEA's Limitations Provision
IDEA requires each state to establish an administrative
procedure to review claimed violations of the IDEA.
See 20 U.S.C. § 1415; 34 C.F.R. § 300.511.
The IDEA also provides that any party aggrieved by a state
hearing officer's final decision has the right to bring a
civil action in state or federal court to ...