COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Division of Administrative Law Appeals
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
In Re: Student v. BSEA # 2613612
Pembroke Public Schools
Ruling on Pembroke Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss
On May 13, 2026, Parent filed a Hearing Request, alleging that Pembroke Public Schools (Pembroke or District) violated the parent participation requirements of the IDEA by convening Student’s annual Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team meeting on November 24, 2025, without Parent present, and thereafter issuing an IEP that was developed in Parent’s absence. As relief, Parent sought compensatory services for Student.
On June 23, 2026, Pembroke filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion), asserting the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Specifically, Pembroke argues that at the time of the Hearing in BSEA #2510070 the issue of parental participation in the Team meeting was known, that the Decision in BSEA # 2510070 addressed parental participation in IEP meetings with the same parties, and that the attempts to schedule and the cause of action there involved are “sufficiently identical” to the instant case.
On June 26, 2026, Parent filed her Opposition to Pembroke’s Motion, asserting that res judicata and collateral estoppel do not apply. According to Parent res judicata is inapplicable because the fall 2025 annual review meeting had not yet occurred when the hearing in BSEA case # 2510070 was conducted; and collateral estoppel does not apply, as no factual findings were made regarding the annual review meeting, thus no litigation on that specific matter transpired.
Facts[1]:
1) Student is a 9-year-old Pembroke resident who attends third grade at Sacred Heart Elementary School (Sacred Heart), a private school in Weymouth, Massachusetts, where she was unilaterally placed by Mother.
2) Student has been found eligible to receive special education services under the Health disability category (SE-7). Her 2024-2025 IEP was set to expire on October 22, 2025 (SE-1).
3) Student has never received special education services from Pembroke (SE-7 at 5).
4) On March 19, 2025, Parent requested a Hearing with the BSEA, BSEA # 2510070. The eighth issue in that matter involved,[2]
Whether commencing in 2023, the District violated Parent's procedural due process rights including denial of meaningful participation at IEP meetings, and failing to provide clear and timely communications regarding her rights, and the District's obligation to privately placed students.
5) Parent and Pembroke engaged in ongoing communication regarding scheduling of Student’s annual IEP Team meeting between September and November 2025 (Parent’s Hearing Request in BSEA # 2613612).
6) On September 28, 2025, Pembroke sent a meeting invitation for Student’s annual review, scheduled to proceed on October 14, 2025 (SE-2).
7) Parent had previously authorized communication between Pembroke and Sacred Heart during the 2024-2025 school year. On October 1, 2025, Pembroke requested updated consent for communication for the 2025-2026 school year (SE-3). Pembroke did not receive updated consent (SE-4).
8) Via email on October 7, 2025, Parent requested that the October 14, 2025, Team meeting be rescheduled because the Hearing involving the Parties in BSEA case # 2510070, then pending before the BSEA, was scheduled to proceed to Hearing on October 15, 2025 (PE-A; SE-4).
9) On October 8, 2025, Parent proposed a brief five-to-ten minute “consultation” on October 21 or October 22, followed by a full annual review meeting in early November 2025 (PE-B; PE-C; SE-4; SE-7 at 2-3).
10) On October 9, 2025, Pembroke proposed November 14, 2025, as the annual review date. Parent responded the same day noting her availability on November 14, and the Parties agreed to extend Student’s existing IEP until that date, documenting the extension through an N1(PE-C; SE-4; SE-7).
11) On November 10, 2025, Pembroke emailed Parent to provide an update regarding meeting attendance due to lack of consent for communications with Sacred Heart (SE-4).
12) On November 11, 2025, Parent responded, informing Pembroke that she was no longer available to attend the November 14, 2025, meeting and would not be available on any other day during the week of November 10th through the 14th. Parent advised that she was available during the week of November 17th through the 21st, between 10:30a.m. and 12:00p.m. (PE-D; PE-G; SE-4; SE-5; SE-7; Parent’s Hearing Request).
13) Pembroke subsequently proposed November 25, 2025, and then November 24, 2025, for reconvening Student’s annual IEP meeting, as that was the date on which mandatory team members (inclusive of Sacred Heart staff) were available (PE-E; PE-F; SE-5).
14) On November 19, 2025, Parent informed Pembroke that she would be unavailable for the meeting on November 24, 2025. The Team Chair responded that the Team would meet without Parent in order to comply with the applicable timelines and advised that Parent would have an opportunity to review and provide feedback regarding the IEP thereafter (PE-G; PE-H; PE-I; SE-4; SE-6; SE-7).
15) On November 24, 2025, Pembroke convened the annual Team meeting. Participants included the Team Chair, the Director of Student Services, general education and special education teachers from Pembroke, and a classroom teacher and Learning Center Director from Sacred Heart (SE-6).
16) Because Pembroke did not possess current consent authorizing communication with Sacred Heart regarding Student’s education, and Parent was not present to provide verbal consent, Sacred Heart personnel were dismissed from the meeting (PE-I; SE-6).
17) On November 26, 2025, Pembroke issued an updated IEP for the period from November 24, 2025, to November 23, 2026, offering Student participation in a full inclusion program (SE-6).
18) On December 15, 2025, Parent filed a complaint with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (DESE) Problem Resolution System (PRS) concerning the November 24, 2025, Team meeting (SE-8).
19) A Decision in BSEA # 2510070 was issued on December 23, 2025, addressing, among other issues, the alleged violations of procedural due process rights, “including denial of meaningful participation at IEP meetings”, failure to provide clear and timely communications regarding Parent’s rights, and “the District’s obligations to privately placed students”. The Decision denied Parent’s request for compensatory services (SE-7).
20) On January 9, 2026, Parent advised Pembroke that she had not yet received the IEP developed at the November 24, 2025, Team meeting (PE-J). Parent subsequently received the IEP electronically on January 12, 2026, and rejected it in full on January 14, 2026 (PE-K).
21) On February 12, 2026, PRS issued a Letter of Closure finding Pembroke in compliance (SE-8). Parent subsequently requested reconsideration of findings, but PRS declined to revise its determination.
22) On May 13, 2026, Parent filed the instant Hearing Request with the BSEA. A Notice of Hearing was issued on May 14, 2026.
23) The May 2026 Hearing Request alleges violation of 34 CFR §300.322, denial of meaningful parental participation relative to convening of the Team at a time when Parent was unavailable. The Hearing Request also alleges that parental exclusion from the Team meeting where the IEP was developed deprived the Team of critical information and undermined the collaborative process. Additionally, while conceding that PRS findings are not appealable, the request notes that said determination contained factual inaccuracies which would be corrected at Hearing. Parent’s requested relief includes: a finding that the District violated the IDEA by denying Parent meaningful participation; a finding that the Student was denied a FAPE; an order that the District reconvene the Team at a time convenient to Parent; and compensatory services for any denial of FAPE resulting from the alleged procedural violations (Parent’s Hearing Request).
24) Pembroke filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on May 18, 2026, and Parent filed an Opposition on May 20, 2026. A Ruling denying Summary Judgment was issued on June 11, 2026. On June 23, 2026, Pembroke filed the instant Motion to Dismiss (Motion), which Parent Opposed on June 26, 2026.
Legal Standards:
I. Motion to Dismiss
Pursuant to the Standard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01(7)(g)(3) and Rule XVII A and B of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals, a hearing officer may allow a motion to dismiss if the party requesting the hearing fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This rule is analogous to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as such hearing officers have generally used the same standards as the courts in deciding motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Specifically, what is required to survive a motion to dismiss “are factual ‘allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)’ an entitlement to relief.”[3] In evaluating the complaint, the hearing officer must take as true “the allegations of the complaint, as well as such inferences as may be drawn therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor.”[4] These “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level . . . [based] on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). . .”[5]
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel:
The principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, preclude re-litigation of the same issues and claims, arising from the same body of facts, between the same parties, which issues and claims have been disposed of in previous cases.
Res judicata is comprised of three elements that must be met: (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.[6]
Collateral estoppel prohibits re-litigation of an issue on a different cause of action involving a party from the first case if an issue of law or fact necessary to a judgment has already been decided. [7] These principles apply to BSEA decisions.[8]
Application of Legal Standards:
Pembroke asserts that it is entitled to a dismissal because the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude Parent’s Hearing Request. The District argues that res judicata bars claims asserted by Parent because a final judgment on the merits exists as a result of a Decision issued on December 23, 2025 in BSEA case #2510070, which involved this particular Parent, District, and Student, and addressed, among other issues, parental participation in IEP meetings. The District asserts that the cause of action as well as the scheduling attempts in both the instant matter and in BSEA #2510070 are “sufficiently identical” to be barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Additionally, Pembroke asserts that the issue presented in the instant case was known at the time of the hearing in BSEA #2510070 (as Student’s annual review was scheduled in advance of that hearing), thus Parent had the opportunity to pursue the claim she raises herein, in the previous Hearing but did not do so.
Parent disputes Pembroke’s application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, asserting that the issues raised in the instant matter were not previously litigated in BSEA #2510070 and occurred subsequent to the close of the record in BSEA #2510070. Parent asserts that the annual review, scheduled for November 24, 2025, was after the close of the record in BSEA #2510070 and therefore, that her claims regarding this annual review and parental participation are separate and independent of her previous claims asserted at Hearing in case # 2510070. Additionally, Parent claims she did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues now before the Hearing Officer in the previous case because the issues did not yet exist at the time of the previous Hearing, and that the instant matter presents a new set of facts on which no Hearing Officer has made factual findings.
The record reflects that the Hearing in BSEA #2510070 was held on October 15, 2025, with the record closing on November 13, 2025. Hearing issue number 8 in that matter was, “whether commencing in 2023, the District violated Parent’s procedural due process rights including denial of meaningful participation at IEP meetings, and failing to provide clear and timely communications regarding her rights, and the District’s obligations to privately placed students.” Ultimately, Pembroke prevailed on all issues in BSEA #2510070, including issue number 8.
The Parties in the instant matter initially scheduled Student’s annual Team meeting for October 14, 2025, and subsequently agreed to reschedule the meeting for November 14, 2025. They further agreed to extend Student’s then existing IEP pending the annual review. Thereafter, Parent informed Pembroke that she would be unavailable on November 14, 2025. Pembroke subsequently proposed November 25, 2025, and November 24, 2025, as alternative dates for the annual meeting, ultimately opting to hold the meeting on November 24, 2025, on the basis that the District had exhausted reasonable efforts to schedule the annual review and Student’s IEP was approaching expiration. Parent disputes this characterization and her Hearing Request contends that she informed Pembroke that November 24, 2025, conflicted with her schedule and that alternative meeting dates remained available. Parent further disputes that circumstances necessitated convening the Team meeting on November 24, 2025, without her participation.
Pembroke is correct that the instant matter involves the same parties, and an issue/ claim with “sufficient identicality” to the issue/claim raised in case #2510070, i.e., denial of meaningful participation at IEP meetings. The previous case, however, did not involve scheduling/convening of the annual Team meeting to discuss the 2025-2026 IEP. While some of the prongs necessary for application of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are here present, the Decision in BSEA #2510070 did not address the specific IEP meeting referenced in the instant matter (BSEA # 2613612) with which Parent now takes issue. As such, neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel is applicable here.
Viewing the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in Parent’s favor, as I must do in the context of a motion to dismiss, I find that Parent’s Hearing Request raises a possible claim regarding a Team meeting that occurred following the Hearing in BSEA #2510070. Parent’s claim regarding meaningful parental participation survives the instant Motion to Dismiss. As such, a Hearing limited to the alleged violation of 34 CFR §300.322 and the events occurring between September and November of 2025, including the Team meeting on November 24, 2025, may proceed to Hearing as scheduled on August 17, 2026. Pembroke’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Parent is reminded that at Hearing she carries the burden of persuasion pursuant to Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005).
ORDER:
1) Pembroke Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,
Rosa I. Figueroa
Rosa I. Figueroa
Dated: August 7, 2026
Footnotes
[1] The facts delineated in this section are taken as true for purposes of this Ruling only. These facts are lifted from the Parties’ initial pleadings as summarized in the previous ruling on Pembroke Public Schools’ Motion for Summary Judgment issued on June 11, 2026, and augmented as necessary.
[2] The remaining issues in BSEA # 2510070 were: “1) Whether Pembroke violated its child find obligations and denied student a free appropriate public education FAPE from June 20, 2023 forward; 2) Whether the services and placement offered by Pembroke in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) from November 2024 to November 2025 were reasonably calculated to offer student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment; 3) Whether Student is entitled to receive special education services at a public school facility or other public or neutral site; 4) Whether Student was entitled to receive extended school [year] services (ESY) in 2025; 5) Whether student is entitled to transportation from the private placement to Pembroke to receive special education services; 6) Whether Student is entitled to compensatory education services in reading and math based on proposed services she did not receive from November 2024 to date; and 7) Whether Parent is entitled to reimbursement for privately incurred educational expenses related to Student’s attendance at the Sacred Heart School” (PE-A; SE-4).
[3] See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 636 (2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)).
[4] See Blank v. Chelmsford Ob/Gyn, P.C., 420 Mass. 404, 407 (1995).
[5] See Golchin v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 460 Mass. 222, 223 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
[6] See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980); 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); Gonzalez-Pina v. Rodriguez, 407 F.3d 425, 429 (1st Cir. 2005).
[7] See Allen, 449 U.S. at 94.
[8] See In Re: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education and Xili, BSEA# 18-02999, 24 MSER 14 (Ruling, Byrne 2018) (“The common law doctrine of estoppel- in this case res judicata and collateral estoppel- prevents the BSEA consideration of the Parent’s residency-related claims as a court in this jurisdiction considered and disposed of the same claims, arising from the same factual allegations against the same party.”).