COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
BSEA# 26-08048
RULING ON DEPARTMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS HEARING REQUEST
On January 14, 2026, Parents filed a Hearing Request against the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the Department or DESE)[1] (BSEA # 26-07507). The matter was dismissed with prejudice in my Ruling on The Department’s Motion to Dismiss on January 21, 2026 (the Ruling). On January 23, 2026, Parents again filed a Hearing Request against DESE (BSEA # 2608048) asserting the identical claims which were dismissed in the Ruling.
On February 3, 2026, DESE filed the Department’s Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request. In it, DESE asserts that because the instant request is identical to the prior request, with no new facts added, and as the January 21, 2026 Ruling dismissed the prior matter with prejudice, the BSEA should dismiss the instant Hearing Request as barred by res judicata.
Via email dated February 3, 2026, Parents’ advocate responded that he would refile the complaint if the matter were dismissed, as he does not “…accept that DESE is above the rules.” Parents’ advocate followed up by filing a Motion to Quash, asserting that “[b]ecause DESE’s Motion exceeds the permissible bounds of Rule XVII of the BSEA Hearing Rules, rests on an incorrect application of claim-preclusion doctrine, and attempts to convert jurisdictional dismissals into merits rulings, the Motion must be quashed in its entirety.”
DISCUSSION AND ORDER:
- Legal Standards:
The purpose of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel is to “prevent plaintiffs from splitting their claims by providing a strong incentive for them to plead all factually related allegations and attendant legal theories for recovery the first time they bring suit.”[2] These doctrines “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.”[3] Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.[4] The three elements of res judicata are (1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) “sufficient identicality” between the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) “sufficient identicality” between the parties in the two suits.[5] Moreover, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, once an issue of fact or law necessary to a judgment has been decided, that decision may preclude re-litigating the issue in an appeal on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.[6] A final order of an administrative agency in an adjudicatory proceeding, not appealed from and as to which the appeal period has expired, precludes re-litigation of the same issues between the same parties, just as would a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.[7] Hence, these doctrines both apply to a BSEA Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the merits of a special education dispute.
A “dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not considered to be ‘on the merits,’ and therefore is without res judicata effect.”[8] Nevertheless, the First Circuit has found that “dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction precludes re[-]litigation of the issues determined in ruling on the jurisdictional question.”[9] Thus, where the BSEA has determined that it lacks the legal authority to adjudicate a particular claim, that determination is binding on the parties and cannot be reargued in subsequent filings before the BSEA.
- Application of Legal Standards:
For the same reasons articulated in my January 21, 2026 Ruling on the Department’s Motion to Dismiss Hearing Request in BSEA # 2607507 involving the same parties, and because 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(1)(B) requires that a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (which includes a ruling dismissing a matter with prejudice) is a final agency action subject to no further agency review, Parent’s January 23, 2026 Hearing Request must be dismissed.
ORDER:
The Department’s Motion is ALLOWED. The Hearing Request is dismissed with prejudice.
So Ordered,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir
Date: February 3, 2026
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL
Effect of BSEA Decision, Dismissal with Prejudice and Allowance of Motion for Summary Judgment
20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(1)(B) requires that a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals be final and subject to no further agency review. Similarly, a Ruling Dismissing a Matter with Prejudice and a Ruling Allowing a Motion for Summary Judgment are final agency actions. If a ruling orders Dismissal with Prejudice of some, but not all claims in the hearing request, or if a ruling orders Summary Judgment with respect to some but not all claims, the ruling of Dismissal with Prejudice or Summary Judgment is final with respect to those claims only.
Accordingly, the Bureau cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open either a Bureau decision or the Rulings set forth above once they have issued. They are final subject only to judicial (court) review.
Except as set forth below, the final decision of the Bureau must be implemented immediately. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, s. 14(3), appeal of the decision does not operate as a stay. This means that the decision must be implemented immediately even if the other party files an appeal in court, and implementation cannot be delayed while the appeal is being decided. Rather, a party seeking to stay—that is, delay implementation of– the decision of the Bureau must request and obtain such stay from the court having jurisdiction over the party’s appeal.
Under the provisions of 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(j), “unless the State or local education agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement,” while a judicial appeal of the Bureau decision is pending, unless the child is seeking initial admission to a public school, in which case “with the consent of the parents, the child shall be placed in the public school program.”
Therefore, where the Bureau has ordered the public school to place the child in a new placement, and the parents or guardian agree with that order, the public school shall immediately implement the placement ordered by the Bureau. School Committee of Burlington v. Massachusetts Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). Otherwise, a party seeking to change the child’s placement while judicial proceedings are pending must ask the court having jurisdiction over the appeal to grant a preliminary injunction ordering such a change in placement. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Doe v. Brookline, 722 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1983).
Compliance
A party contending that a Bureau of Special Education Appeals decision is not being implemented may file a motion with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals contending that the decision is not being implemented and setting out the areas of non-compliance. The Hearing Officer may convene a hearing at which the scope of the inquiry shall be limited to the facts on the issue of compliance, facts of such a nature as to excuse performance, and facts bearing on a remedy. Upon a finding of non-compliance, the Hearing Officer may fashion appropriate relief, including referral of the matter to the Legal Office of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education or other office for appropriate enforcement action. 603 CMR 28.08(6)(b).
Rights of Appeal
Any party aggrieved by a final agency action by the Bureau of Special Education Appeals may file a complaint for review in the state superior court of competent jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2).
An appeal of a Bureau decision to state superior court or to federal district court must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of the decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2)(B).
Confidentiality
In order to preserve the confidentiality of the student involved in these proceedings, when an appeal is taken to superior court or to federal district court, the parties are strongly urged to file the complaint without identifying the true name of the parents or the child, and to move that all exhibits, including the transcript of the hearing before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, be impounded by the court. See Webster Grove School District v. Pulitzer Publishing Company, 898 F.2d 1371 (8th. Cir. 1990). If the appealing party does not seek to impound the documents, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, through the Attorney General’s Office, may move to impound the documents.
Record of the Hearing
The Bureau of Special Education Appeals will provide an electronic verbatim record of the hearing to any party, free of charge, upon receipt of a written request. Pursuant to federal law, upon receipt of a written request from any party, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals will arrange for and provide a certified written transcription of the entire proceedings by a certified court reporter, free of charge.
[1] Parents did not name Dudley-Charlton Regional School District as a party in the matter.
[2] See P.P. ex rel. Michael P. v. West Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.2d 727, 736 (3rd Cir. 2009).
[3] Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).
[4] Id.
[5] Id.; see In Re Sonus Networks, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litig., 499 F.3d 47, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007); Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration in Medicine, 444 Mass. 837, 843 (2005).
[6] See Allen, 449 U.S. at 94.
[7] See Diaz v. City of Somerville, 59 F.4th 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2023); see also See Kobrin, 444 Mass. at 844 (“final order of an administrative agency in an adjudicatory proceeding … precludes re[-]litigation of the same issues between the same parties, just as would a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction”).
[8] Muniz Cortes v. Intermedics, Inc., 229 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir. 2000).
[9] Id. at 14–15.