COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Peabody Public Schools
BSEA #25-02822
RULING ON PEABODY PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE BSEA HEARING RULES
This matter comes before the Hearing Officer on Peabody Public Schools’ (the District or Peabody) Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice For Failure to Comply with the BSEA Hearing Rules (the Motion), filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on September 19, 2024, in which Peabody asserts that the District “… has not received a written request for hearing. As such the Parents have failed to comply with prerequisites to file a request for hearing,” and the matter must be dismissed.
Parent did not respond to the Motion despite several reminders by the Hearing Officer to do so.
Neither party has requested a hearing on the Motion. Because neither testimony nor oral argument would advance the Hearing Officer’s understanding of the issues involved, this Ruling is issued without a hearing, pursuant to Bureau of Special Education Appeals Hearing Rule VII(D).
For the reasons set forth below, the District’s Motion is hereby DENIED.
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On September 4, 2024, Parents filed the Hearing Request in this matter against Peabody. In completing the Hearing Request Form, Parent[1] signed and certified that she sent the form to the opposing party at the same time as she sent it to the BSEA. She indicated that she sent the form to the opposing party by “mail.”
On September 5, 2024, the BSEA issued a Notice of Hearing identifying October 9, 2024 as the initial hearing date in the instant matter.
On September 19, 2024, the District responded with the instant Motion.
On September 26, 2024, the Hearing Officer provided Counsel for the District with a copy of the Hearing Request via email.
BSEA Hearing Rule I(B) states that to “begin the hearing process, the party requesting the hearing (i.e., moving party) must send a written hearing request to the opposing party. At the same time, the moving party must send a copy of the hearing request to the BSEA.”[2]
Although the BSEA is not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Hearing Officers often look to them for guidance. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff must comply with Rule(4)(i)(1) for proper service. When timely service is not made under Rule 4, Rule 4(m) provides, that “if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure [to effect proper service in a timely manner], the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”[3] Good cause may be found when the plaintiff’s failure to complete proper service in a timely fashion is related to (1) the actions of a third person, such as a process server; (2) a defendant evading service of process or engaging in misleading conduct; (3) the plaintiff acting diligently in trying to effect service or “some understandable mitigating circumstance”; and (4) the plaintiff proceeding pro se or in forma pauperis.[4]
The fact that a plaintiff is pro se “is not automatically enough to constitute good cause for purposes of Rule 4(m).”[5] “In determining what is and what is not good cause, the federal courts obviously are obligated to balance the clear intent of Rule 4(m) and the desire to provide litigants their day in court.”[6] “Insisting on a timely service of process and assuring litigants a just adjudication on the merits of an action are not inconsistent, but over-emphasis on either could lead to undesired consequences.”[7] Good cause can be established in part “where a pro se litigant can show confusion on his part, either because of his unfamiliarity with the rules, or because of his reliance on the misleading advice of others.”[8]
Further even absent a showing of good cause, a court still has discretion to extend time to properly effect service under Rule 4.[9] When proper service is not completed and there is no good cause to excuse improper service, a court’s discretion to extend time for service is guided by three factors: (1) whether the party to be served received actual notice of the lawsuit;[10] (2) whether the defendant would suffer prejudice; and (3) whether the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.[11] In addition, courts consider whether the plaintiff acted in bad faith or intentionally failed to adhere to the rules.[12]
APPLICATION OF LEGAL STANDARDS:
The core purpose of service in civil proceedings is: (1) to provide a court jurisdiction over the defendant, and (2) to put the party being sued on notice of the lawsuit. Here, on September 4, 2024, Parent certified that she had served the school district via mail. Even if the District failed to receive Parent’s service via USPS at that time, subsequently, the District received a copy of the complaint on September 26, 2024. A such, the purpose of service has been met despite any alleged imperfections in service.
Consistent with BSEA Hearing Rule I(b), the date that the opposing party receives the hearing request is the operative date for calculating due process timelines. As the District has been provided with sufficient, actual notice of the Hearing Request September 26, 2024, the timelines in this matter shall be recalculated to reflect the District’s receipt of the Hearing Request on September 26, 2024. As such, the District’s request for dismissal is DENIED.
ORDER:
The District’s Motion is DENIED. Nevertheless, the BSEA will issue a Recalculated Notice of Hearing.
By the Hearing Officer:
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Dated: September 26, 2024
[1] All references to Parent are to Student’s mother.
[2] Sending the hearing request to the office of a school administrator, or to counsel for a party shall be deemed sufficient service.
[3] Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
[4] McIsaac v. Ford, 193 F. Supp. 2d 382, 383 (D. Mass. 2002) (quoting Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1137, at 342 (2002)).
[5] Id.
[6] Id. at 384.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Awadh v. Tourneau, Inc., No. 15-cv-13993-DJC, 2017 WL 1246326, at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 17, 2017).
[10] Evariste v. United States, No. 19-CV-11996-DJC, 2021 WL 828380, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 4, 2021) (defendant had actual notice of claims, as evidenced by the filing of the motion to dismiss); Payne v. Massachusetts, No. 09-cv-10355-PBS, 2010 WL 5583117, at *4 (D. Mass. Nov. 18, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 09-cv-10355, 2010 WL 5583111 (D. Mass. Dec. 10, 2010) (concluding that “the defendant received actual notice of [Plaintiff’s] claims against it and was able to file a response to those claims, in the form of its motions to dismiss”).
[11] Bell v. Rinchem Co., Inc., No. 14-cv-40177-TSH, 2014 WL 11290899, at *4 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2014) (citing H & A Corp. v. United States, No. 14-13783-MLW, 2015 WL 5610816, at *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 22, 2015)).
[12] Aly v. Mohegan Council-Boy Scouts of America, No. 08-40099-FDS, 2009 WL 3299951, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 20, 2009).