Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-3801IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 13y �4�sPi -- ✓t CL)\, �'laintiff . vs C AA. -laA ie-t.l,l2 Sal "1Ns-k--v, t v Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW NO./4-3$O / CIVIL ..—re -7-4/1 a m rn (J, r_ < -�i (Local Agency Appeal) NOTICE TO DEFEND YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUECED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 C- c N) .73 l' 710 4 X03. 75 -pd %l�f J`' C#' 13 6 B# 3077.622.. J.C., a minor BY STUDENT'S PARENTS KEVIN AND DENISE CULLEY Petitioners v. CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Respondent :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY :PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION LAW :NO. CIVIL 2014 :Local Agency Appeal) APPEAL AND PETITION FOR HEARING DE NOVO AND NOW comes the minor petitioner, J.C., by student's parents Kevin and Denise Culley, who file this appeal from the action of the Cumberland Valley School District Board of Directors and respectfully represents: 1. The minor petitioner is 15 years of age, having been born August 26, 1998 and was enrolled as a tenth grade student in the Cumberland Valley School District during the 2013-2014 school year. 2. The Respondent School Board is a local agency as defined in Local Agency Law, LAL, 2 Pa. C.S.A. §101, and has responsibility for the administration and proper and lawful manner of the affairs of the Cumberland Valley School District. 3. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, the Disciplinary Committee of the School Board Directors convened an expulsion hearing regarding J.C.. 4. Petitioners through their legal counsel objected to the expulsion proceeding because the J.C. has known disabilities and Pennsylvania Chapter 14, Special Education Services and Programs State Regulations have adopted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to include §300.534, Protections for children not determined eligible for special education and related services. The IDEA protections include the requirement for school districts to conduct Manifestation Determinations in accordance with §300.530 to determine if a student's behaviors are disability related. The Disciplinary Committee Chairperson denied this objection by the Petitioners. 5. Petitioners through their legal counsel also objected to proceeding with the disciplinary hearing because the student and parents had not been provided with the names of all witnesses and copies of statements in violation of 22 Pa. Code §12.8. Hearings. The Disciplinary Committee Chairperson denied this objection. 6. The Disciplinary Committee Chairperson informed the student and parents that the Committee was recommending expulsion to the Directors of the School Board, but would hold that decision in abeyance until completion of the school district's special education evaluation under the IDEA. 7. On May 15, 2014, the school psychologist sent an email to the parents with an Evaluation Report attached. The IEP Participants section was not completed and the school psychologist stated that "hard copies" would be sent in the mail and that they needed to meet concerning the Evaluation Report. The parents were not provided with a copy of their IDEA procedural safeguard rights. 8. When the parents did not receive a "hard copy" of the Evaluation Report and were not contacted by school district personnel about attending an Evaluation Report meeting, they submitted their disagreement with the Evaluation Report and presented a written request for an IDEA Independent Educational Evaluation pursuant to IDEA §300.502 to the school district's special education director on May 29, 2014. 9. In an email sent to the parents at 5:46 p.m. on May 29, 2014, the Assistant Superintendent stated that the School District Board of Directors had approved J.C.'s expulsion on April 7, 2014 and that they should receive the decision made on April 7, 2014 in the mail that day (May 29, 2014). 10.The Petitioners' position is that the April 7, 2014 School Board Directors' Decision does not state that the student has been expelled. The School Board Director's Resolution 2014-18 contained a recommendation by the Disciplinary Committee at 2. "that the Board hold in abeyance any official action on the recommendation for expulsion, pending completion of the evaluation under IDEA". 11.In the School Board Director's DECISION at 3. the recommendations of the Board sub -committee were accepted which included holding in abeyance any official action on the recommendation for expulsion. The parents have not received any notice of any further official action by the School Board Directors. 12.The School Board Director's Resolution 2014-18 at 4. dated April 7, 2014 directed the Superintendent to send forthwith photocopies of the decision and give oral notice to the student and parents. The school district failed to comply with this directive. 13.The parents' position is that the school district administration did not have authority to expel J.C. in the correspondence which the parents received on May 29, 2014 based on the School Board Director's Resolution 2014-18 DECISION on April 7, 2014 which stated that official action was being held in abeyance by the Board. 14.In addition, the parents' position is that the authority to determine whether or not the IDEA Evaluation process has been completed rests with the School Board Directors and not with school administrators, that school administrators do not have the authority to expel students . 15.Even if the Superintendent has authority to expel the student the IDEA Evaluation process is not yet completed and this includes meeting with school personnel according to the school psychologist, having IEP Participants sign the document, and resolving the IEE request which was filed on behalf of J.C. by the parents. 16.The school district's special education director issued the parents a Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (NOREP) which stated that J.C. was not eligible for special education services. The parents disapproved the NOREP on June 18, 2014 citing the May 29, 2014 IEE request submitted to the school district. 17.The Petitioners' appeal also includes objections to the factual assertions made by school district personnel. Allegations by school personnel that the student was under the influence of drugs were not supported by two police officers who were present during the incident. The student's alleged behaviors do not meet the criteria for an expulsion. 18.The two attached exhibits have been redacted by the student's legal counsel. Wherefore, petitioners request this honorable court to schedule a de novo hearing in this matter regarding this student's unlawful expulsion from the Cumberland Valley School District. Date: 6-27-2014 Respectfully Submitted: CD1w11\fg1/& Phillip A. Drumheiser Attorney -at -Law P.O. Box 890 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Phillip A. Drumheiser, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Appeal and Petition for Hearing De Novo, by U.S. Certified Mail, first class, postage pre -paid on the 27th day of June, 2014, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Michael J. Cassidy, Esquire Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 ebv.,),vm, Phillip A. Drumheiser Attorney -at -Law P.O. Box 890 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-2688 From: Steven Kirkpatrick (SKirkpatrick@cvschools.org) Sent: Thu 5/29/14 5:46 PM. To: Kevin CuIley (culleyccs@msn.com) Cc: Brian Robinson (BRobinson©cvschools.org) Mr. Culley, You should have received in the mail today a copy of the student discipline resolution approved by the board of school directors on April 7 and a letter outlining the terms of that resolution. I do not have access to a copy of that letter right now but can send you one electronically tomorrow if for some reason you have not received it in the mail by then. Homebound has been terminated per one of the conditions of the board resolution. The letter goes on to explain the process by which iT s can continue --education from this point forward. Please contact my office with any questions. Yours in education, Steve Kirkpatrick Assistant Superintendent Cumberland Valley School District 506-3303 - >» Kevin Culley <culleyccs@msn.com> 5/29/2014 3:00 PM >>> _ This is Kevin Culley. Mr. Hill relayed to me that he has been instructed not to provide J - - with any further homebound instruction, by the District, until the District releases him to provide further homebound instruction. Can someone provide me with any information on why homebound instruction was terminated. Kevin Culley IN RE: J. RESOLUTION 2014-18 • DECISION OF BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT BEFORE THE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS STUDENT DISCIPLINE PROCEEDING AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2014, the Board of School Directors of the Cumberland Valley School District, acting upon the recommendation of a committee of its members, hereby decides the above matter as follows: BACKGRQUND During the 2013-2014 academic year J — ' C' was a 10th grade student in the Cumberland Valley High School. is charged with violating the Student Discipline Policy (Policy No. 2I8). The Administration initiated formal disciplinary hearing proceedings before this Board, following an informal hearing on March 28, 2014, by giving written Notice of Charges and hearing to ,T, , C' a student, and to Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Culley, parent(s) of the student, dated March 28, 2014. This Board appointed Directors Shaffner, Griffie and Long to act as a committee to conduct the disciplinary hearing scheduled for April 1, 2014, at the District Administration Building. Proper notice of the hearing having been given to the student and , parent(s), the hearing was held on April 1, 2014, and the proceedings were recorded by digital voice recorder. ; did appear. Mr. & Mrs. Culley, parent(s) of 3 C. did appear on behalf of their . AIso present on behalf of the family was their attorney, Mr. Drumheiser. Additionally, Principals, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Robinson, and Ms.. Baumgardner, Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Director of Special Education, Mrs. Wilson, and Superintendent, Dr. Withum represented the Administration.. Also present on behalf of the board of directors was Mr. Michael Cassidy, the district's solicitor. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On January 17, 2014, while being questioned by school personnel, C , was believed to be under the influence of a controlled substance. 2. On January 17, 2014, staff attempted to direct .r ' C ; to the office and pushed through them with body, then hands. 3. On January 17, 2014, the police were called and arrived. J' C' was placed in an Emergency Safety Physical Assist. jr C refused to cooperate with an administrative search. 4. On January 17, 2014, J' C parents were called and upon arriving at school took ' : home before the nurse was able to assess s. Later, school administration called to explain that pursuant to school board Policy 227, a drug test would be need to be administered. 3 C did not comply with this directive. 5. On January 24, 2014, an informal building level hearing was held during which the requirement of a drug test was again explained. The administration of consequences for the January 17, 2014 incident were delayed due to a proposed settlement agreement between the Culley's and the school district. The settlement agreement was never finalized. 6. On March 20 and 21, 2014, J C - was repeatedly insubordinate, not complying with the direction of the building administrators. 7. On March 28, 2014, another informal building level hearing was held with Mr. Robinson, Ms. Baurngardner, Mr. & Mrs. Culley and J' C' at which the administration informed the Culley's that a formal student disciplinary hearing would occur. 8. On April 1, 2014, during the formal student disciplinary hearing the subcommittee of the board of directors found J C to be in violation of Board Policy 218 — Student Discipline. RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee assigned to hear and report a recommendation in this matter reports that the foregoing facts were duly established at the hearing and finds the testimony given by the district administration to be honest and forthcoming. The Committee assigned to hear this matter recommends the following: 1. Perthe parents' request, and in reliance upon the recommendation by the student's treating physician, the student immediately shall be placed on homebound instruction upon receipt of proper documentation, pending the outcome of the proceedings described below. If, in the interim, the student's treating physician provides a written recommendation that the student is physically capable of attending CPAVTS for regular morning session, then homebound instruction will be modified to allow for half-day instruction (provided CPAVTS is in agreement). 2. The committee is recommending that the student be expelled though the end of the 2014-15 academic year, and be permitted to return to school for the 2015-16 academic year, provided the student has been cleared administratively to return. That being said, the committee is recommending that the Board hold in abeyance any official action on the recommendation for expulsion, pending completion of the evaluation under IDEA and, if necessary, a manifestation determination, as discussed below. 3. In the interim, CVSD will (to the extent possible) expedite completion of the evaluation requested by the parents under IDEA. The Board will hold in abeyance any further action on the student disciplinary proceeding, pending completion of the initial processes under IDEA. If the initial evaluation determines that the student does not have a disability for purposes of the IDEA, then CVSD will proceed with expulsion, If the initial evaluation determines the student does have a disability for purposes of the IDEA, then a manifestation determination will be made by the IEP team, to determine whether the behaviors for which the student is being disciplined are a manifestation of that disability. If the IEP team determines that the behaviors are a manifestation, then regular protections afforded under the IDEA will kick in, in terms of dealing with the disciplinary issues. If the IEP determines that the behaviors are not a manifestation, then CVSD will proceed with expulsion. 4. In terms of any expulsion, to the extent the student is of compulsory school age, CVSD is agreeing to waive the standard 30 -day period under Chapter 12 regulations and agree to immediately provide educational services. If the student is expelled, CVSD is not agreeing to provide homebound instruction through the end of the 2014-15 school year. CVSD reserves the right to place the student in an appropriate alternative educational setting, to the extent the school district is able to do so under any state or federal laws or regulations. 5. During any expulsion, the student shall not be permitted on school property without prior permission, and will not be permitted to participate in any extra -curricular activities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has jurisdiction over the proceeding and the student pursuant to Section ,§1318 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. §13-1318. 2. The conduct described in the foregoing Findings of Fact constitutes "disobedience or misconduct" under Section §1318 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. §13-1318, and is a violation of the Code of Student Conduct and the Student Discipline Policy, as set forth in Cumberland Valley School District Policy No. 218, in that J C was believed to be under the influence of a controlled substance, pushed through staff with - body, then hands, was put into a Emergency Safety Physical Assist, was picked up by parents before the - • school nurse could assess , refused a drug test, has not followed through with the required drug and alcohol assessment as set forth by Policy 227, and was repeatedly insubordinate. 3. Such conduct may be redressed by permanent expulsion from school pursuant to Section §1318 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. §13-1318, and by the Code of Student Conduct and the Student Discipline Policy. 4. The matter has been heard in a formal hearing before a duly authorized Committee of the Board after appropriate notice of the hearing to the student and parent(s). DECISION AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2014, upon receipt of the foregoing recommendation of the Committee of this Board, on the motion of Mr./Ms. Griffie and seconded by Mr./Ms. Walker and upon the affirmative vote of 9 directors, with 0 negative votes and _0 abstentions (said votes being recorded upon roll call), it is the decision of said Board; 1. To accept and adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact as the findings of the Board; 2. To accept and adopt the foregoing Conclusions of Law as the conclusions of the Board; 3. To accept the recommendations of the Board sub -committee with respect to placing J C on homebound instruction pending the outcome of the proceedings described above for violation of CVSD Policy 218 and 24 P.S. §13-1318. 4. To direct the Superintendent, or designee, to send forthwith photocopies of this Decision under the official seal of the district to the student and parent(s), by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to forthwith give oral notice of the decision to said persons. ATTEST: By the Board of School Directors. Ostittest_ Secretary President (Seal) (NOTE: PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE LOCAL AGENCY LAW, 2 Pa.C.S.A. 752, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.) J.C., a minor By student's parents KEVIN and DENISE CULLEY Petitioners v. CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Defendant AND NOW :I`J THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY :PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION LAW :No. 14-3801 Civil Term :(Local Agency Appeal) ORDER , 2014 on consideration of attached Petition, it is ordered a direfted 1. That the Petitioner be immediately restored to student's full classroom activities. 2. That a hearing on this Petition be fixed for the I ! day of , 2014 at /: 30 01. in Courtroom No. / . Date Or Ft' Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner HQN+0 1- I.D. No. 82164 411 f / : 7 Attorneys for Defendant By: Michael J. Cassidy 2°14 JUL 301 Market Street CUMBERLAND P. O. Box 109 PE NNS `r'L `r 'r, Pt`l UNT Y Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0109 (717) 761-4540, mjc@jdsw. corn J. C., a minor, by student's parents : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF KEVIN and DENISE CULLEY, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. Petitioners NO. 14-3801 CIVIL ACTION — LAW CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, (The Honorable Albert H. Masland) Defendant MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO VACATE ORDER AND NOW comes Defendant, CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS, by and through its undersigned counsel, filing this Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate Court Order dated July 3, 2014 issued by The Honorable Albert H. Masland in the above -captioned matter and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. The matter before This Court pertains to the expulsion of Petitioner, J.C., from Cumberland Valley School District, who at the time of his expulsion was a tenth grade student at Cumberland Valley High School. A copy of the Expulsion Resolution (Resolution 2014-18) approved by the Board of School Directors of the Cumberland Valley School District on April 7, 2014, which has been redacted to protect the identity of the Petitioner, is incorporated herein by reference and attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. On June 27, 2014, Phillip A. Drumheiser, attorney for the Petitioner, filed an Appeal and Petition for Hearing De Novo, seeking to restore Petitioner, a minor student enrolled in the Cumberland Valley School District, to full classroom activities and seeking a hearing on 1 the Petition regarding Petitioner's alleged unlawful expulsion from Cumberland Valley School District. 3. On July 3, 2014, This Honorable Court issued an Order in the above -captioned matter immediately restoring the Petitioner to "full classroom activities" and scheduling a hearing on the Petition for August 11, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 1. 4. This Honorable Court issued its Order of July 3, 2014 without having afforded Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors an opportunity to file an Answer to the Petition or show cause why the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested. I. PETITIONER'S PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED FOR HAVING FAILED TO CONFORM WITH PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND LOCAL RULES. 5. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 206.4 provides that: "A Petition shall proceed upon a Rule to Show Cause, the issuance of which shall be discretionary with the court as provided by Rule 206.5 unless the court by local rule adopts the procedure of Rule 206.6 providing for issuance as of course." Pa. R.C.P. No. 206.4(a). 6. Cumberland County has adopted Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.5 as the procedure governing Rules to Show Cause, which requires a Petitioner seeking the issuance of a Rule to Show Cause to attach to the Petition a proposed Order in the form prescribed by Pa.R.C.P. 206.5(d) and to give notice to all other parties of the intention to request the Court to issue a Rule to Show Cause. See, Cumberland County Local Rule 206.4(C); and See also, Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.5(b). 7. If the Court elects to exercise its discretion under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.5 and issue a Rule to Show Cause in Tight of the Petition, the Court is to enter an Order issuing a Rule upon the Respondent to show cause why the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested and 2 providing the Respondent an opportunity to file an Answer to the Petition. Thereafter, the Rule to Show Cause is to be decided under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.7. See, Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.5(d). 8. In this instance, the Petitioner neglected to attach to his Petition a proposed order in the form prescribed by Pa. R.C.P. No. 206.5(d), and consequently the issuance of the July 3, 2014 Order was premature for having failed to afford Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors an opportunity to file an Answer to the Petition and show cause why the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested. 9. Moving Defendant, Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors, humbly submits that Petitioner's failure to comply with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and Cumberland County Local Rules pertaining to petitions and the issuance of Rules to Show Cause, thereby denying Moving Defendant the opportunity to file an Answer to the Petition explaining why Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested, establishes sufficient grounds to afford This Honorable Court to vacate its Order of July 3, 2014. 10. The Petition contains allegations of fact which do not appear of record, yet Petitioner neglected to include a verification in violation of Pa. R.C.P. No. 206.3. II. PETITIONER'S APPEAL IS UNTIMELY BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS. 11. On April 1, 2014, a student disciplinary committee of the Board of School Directors for Cumberland Valley School District ("Student Disciplinary Committee") convened its formal student disciplinary hearing in the matter involving Petitioner, J.C., in accordance with Section 12.8 of State Board of Education Regulations, 22 Pa. Code §12.8. 12. The purpose of the formal student disciplinary hearing on April 1, 2014 was to determine whether Petitioner, J.C., should be expelled from Cumberland Valley School District for a period of time as a result of numerous violations of the Cumberland Valley School District Code of Student Conduct. 3 13. Following the conclusion of testimony during the student disciplinary hearing, the Student Disciplinary Committee concluded that Petitioner, J.C., should be expelled from Cumberland Valley School District through the end of the 2014-15 academic year; however, the Student Disciplinary Committee agreed to recommend to the Board of School Directors that the expulsion be held in abeyance for the purpose of conducting an initial evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §1400, et seq. See, Exhibit A, Cumberland Valley School Board Resolution 2014-18, Pages 3-4. 14. The purpose of holding the expulsion in abeyance was to afford Cumberland Valley School District the opportunity to conduct an initial evaluation of Petitioner, J.C., under the IDEA and its implementing regulations for the purpose of determining whether Petitioner, J.C., has a disability, as that term is defined under the IDEA. If the initial evaluation determined that Petitioner, J.C., had a disability for purposes of the IDEA, then the Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") team would make a manifestation determination, to determine whether the behavior for which Petitioner, J.C., was being disciplined was a manifestation of that disability. If the IEP determined that the behaviors were a manifestation of a disability protected under the IDEA, then regular protections afforded under the IDEA would be applied, in terms of addressing Petitioner's disciplinary issues. If the IEP team determined that Petitioner's behaviors were not a manifestation of the disability, then Cumberland Valley School District would proceed with expulsion. If the initial evaluation determined that Petitioner, J.C., did not have a disability for purposes of the IDEA, then Cumberland Valley School District would proceed with the expulsion. See, Cumberland Valley School District School Board Resolution 2014-18, "Recommendation of the Committee," Pages 3-4. 15. On April 7, 2014, the Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors approved Board Resolution No. 2014-18 by unanimous vote of all nine school directors, accepting the recommendations of the Student Disciplinary Committee. 16. On May 6, 2014, Steve Kirkpatrick, Assistant Superintendent for Cumberland Valley School District, served a copy of Board Resolution 2014-18 upon Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley at their home residence at 6977 Wertzville Road, Enola, Pennsylvania 17025 by both certified mail (return receipt requested) and by regular first class mail. See, Exhibit B, May 6, 2014 letter from Assistant Superintendent Steve Kirkpatrick to Mr. and Mrs. 4 Kevin Culley. A note at the bottom of the May 6, 2014 correspondence from Assistant Superintendent Kirkpatrick states: "This is being served upon you by both certified mail (return receipt requested) and by regular first-class mail. Should you fail or refuse to accept the certified mail, receipt of the regular mail will be presumed in the absence of its return by the postal service." 17. The certified mailing to Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley was returned to Cumberland Valley School District as having been unclaimed. See, Exhibit C, Photocopy of Certified Mail Envelope. 18. In spite of the return of the unclaimed certified mailing to Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley from Cumberland Valley School District, Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Gulley received notification of Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18 when Assistant Superintendent Steve Kirkpatrick sent a copy of Resolution No. 2014-18 to them via regular first-class mail under cover of letter dated May 6, 2014. 19. Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley are presumed to have received a copy of Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18 via regular first-class mail because the regular first-class mailing to Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley was not returned to Cumberland Valley School District by the U. S. Postal Service as being undeliverable. 20. The note appearing at the end of Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014- 18 clearly advises Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Culley of their right to appeal the decision of the Cumberland Valley Board of School Directors to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Prothonotary for Cumberland County within thirty (30) days from the date of the Decision. See, Exhibit A, Cumberland Valley School Board Resolution 2014-18. 21. The Local Agency Law provides that appeals from an adjudication of a local agency, such as Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors shall proceed in accordance with procedures set forth in Title 42, the Pennsylvania Judicial Code: "Any person aggrieved by an adjudication of a local agency who has a direct interest in such adjudication shall have the right to appeal therefrom to the court 5 vested with jurisdiction of such appeals by or pursuant to Title 42 (relating to judiciary and judicial procedure). 2 Pa. C.S.A. §752. 22. The Pennsylvania Judicial Code provides that an appeal from a government unit, such as Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors, must be commenced within thirty (30) days after the entry of the Order from which the appeal is taken. See, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5571(b). 23. The Pennsylvania Judicial Code further provides that the date of service of an Order of a government unit, which shall be the date of mailing if service is by mail, shall be deemed to be the date of entry of the Order for the purposes of determining when an appeal must be filed. See, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §5572. 24. Cumberland Valley Assistant Superintendent Steve Kirkpatrick mailed a copy of Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18 to Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Culley on May 6, 2014. Consequently, May 6, 2014 is the date of entry of the Order, i.e., the date of issuing Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18 setting forth the conditions under which Petitioner, J.C., would be expelled, for purposes of establishing the thirty (30) day time period in which a Notice of Appeal must be filed in accordance with the Judicial Code and Local Agency Law. 25. June 5, 2014 was the deadline for Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. CuIley to file an appeal from Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18. 26. Petitioner, J.C., and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley, failed to file an appeal from Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18 within thirty (30) days as required by the Local Agency Law and the Judicial Code. 27. Petitioner, J.C., and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley filed their Appeal and Petition for Hearing De Novo on June 27, 2014, which is fifty-two (52) days after Petitioner, J.C., and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley, were served with a copy of Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18. 6 28. Cumberland Valley School District completed its initial evaluation of Petitioner, J.C., on or about May 22, and determined that Petitioner, J.C., does not have a disability under IDEA, and therefore is not eligible for special education services. 29. Because the initial evaluation of Petitioner, J.C., concluded that Petitioner, J.C., does not have a disability under the IDEA, Cumberland Valley School District administration implemented the expulsion of Petitioner, J.C., in accordance with Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18. Cumberland Valley Superintendent Frederick S. Withum, Ill, Ed.D., sent a letter dated May 27, 2014 to Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley, together with another copy of Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18, advising them that Cumberland Valley School District would be imposing the discipline approved by the Cumberland Valley Board of School Directors in Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18 as a result of the initial evaluation having determined that Petitioner, J.C., is not considered to be disabled under the IDEA. See, Exhibit D, Letter dated May 27, 2014 from Frederick S. Withum, Ill, Ed.D., Superintendent of Cumberland Valley School District to Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley. 30. The May 27, 2014 correspondence from Superintendent Withum did not "reset the clock" for a thirty (30) day appeal period under the Local Agency Law and Judicial Code for Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley to file an Appeal from Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18. Rather, the May 27, 2014 correspondence operates only to advise Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley that Cumberland Valley School District Administration was implementing the discipline approved by the Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors in Resolution No. 2014-18 in compliance with the conditions set forth therein. 31. Petitioner's attorney, Phillip Drumheiser, Esquire, agreed with the procedural recommendations of the Student Disciplinary Committee with respect to holding in abeyance any expulsion until the School District completes the initial evaluation. See, Exhibit E, Email communication from Mark Walz, Esquire, to Phillip Drumheiser, Esquire, dated Thursday, April 3, 2014 at 4:45 p.m. 7 III. IDEA'S "STAY PUT" PROVISIONS PROHIBIT THIS HONORABLE COURT FROM RETURNING PETITIONER "TO STUDENT'S FULL CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES." 32. At the April 1, 2014 formal student discipline hearing before the Student Disciplinary Committee, Cumberland Valley School District agreed to place Petitioner, J.C., on homebound instruction, at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Gulley, based upon a letter from Petitioner's treating physician indicating that Petitioner, J.C., is not physically capable of attending school and therefore should be placed on homebound instruction. See, Exhibit A, Cumberland Valley Board Resolution No. 2014-18, Page 3, Recommendation of the Committee, Paragraph 1. 33. Petitioner, J.C., remained on homebound instruction until his expulsion which went into effect on May 27, 2014, following completion of the initial evaluation under the IDEA which determined that Petitioner, J.C., does not have a disability under IDEA and therefore is not entitled to special education services. 34. By and through their attorney, Phillip Drumheiser, Esquire, Petitioner, J.C., and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley, filed an amended due process complaint under IDEA on June 27, 2014. 35. The filing of Petitioner's IDEA due process Complaint triggers numerous procedures and protections under the federal law, including the scheduling of a due process hearing, which in this case is scheduled to commence Thursday, August 7, 2014. See, 20 U.S.C. §1415. 36. When Petitioners filed an amended due process complaint on Jun 27, 2014, the IDEA's "Stay Put" Rule went into effect. The "Stay Put" Rule states that during the pendency of any due process proceedings, the child shall remain in the then -current educational placement. See, 20 U.S.C. §1415(j). In other words, under IDEA, the District must maintain the child in the last agreed upon educational program until the IDEA dispute is resolved. 37. The July 3, 2014 Order issued by This Honorable Court directs that "the Petitioner be immediately restored to student's full classroom activities." 8 38. The July 3, 2014 Order, which was drafted by Petitioner's counsel, Phillip Drumheiser, Esquire, is a disingenuous attempt by Attorney Drumheiser to circumvent IDEA's "Stay Put" Rule requiring Petitioner, J.C., to "stay put" on homebound instruction until Cumberland Valley School District and Petitioners have completed the IDEA due process hearing. 39. Any defects or deficiencies with the procedures employed by Cumberland Valley School District with respect to Petitioner, J.C., under the IDEA, which Cumberland Valley School District vehemently denies, are not within the jurisdiction of This Honorable Court, but instead can be brought before the IDEA due process hearing examiner in the hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 7, 2014. 40. Petitioner, J.C., and Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley have failed to exhaust all administrative remedies with respect to any claims related to Petitioner, J.C.'s rights under the IDEA, and therefore This Honorable Court should deny the Appeal and Petition filed by Petitioner, J.C., and his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley in the above -captioned matter. WHEREFORE, Cumberland Valley School District Board of School Directors respectfully requests This Honorable Court issue an Order vacating in its entirety, its prior Order of July 3, 2014 in the above -captioned matter and instead issue an Order denying Petitioner's Appeal and Petition for a Hearing De Novo. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Michael J. Cassidy :641427 Exhibit A IN RE: T. C_ RESOLUTION 2014-18 • • CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT • • BEFORE THE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS STUDENT DISCIPLINE PROCEEDING DECISION OF BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2014, the Board of School Directors of the Cumberland Valley School District, acting upon the recommendation of a committee of its members, hereby decides the above matter as follows; BACKGROUND During the 2013-2014 academic year 3 - C _ was a 10th grade student in the Cumberland Valley High School. , is charged with violating the Student Discipline Policy (Policy No. 218). The Administration initiated formal disciplinary hearing proceedings before this Board, following an informal hearing on March 28, 2014, by giving written Notice of Charges and hearing to ,T . C. :, a student, and to Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Culley, parent(s) of the student, dated March 28, 2014. This Board appointed Directors Shaffner, Griffie and Long to act as a committee to conduct the disciplinary hearing scheduled for April 1, 2014, at the District Administration Building. Proper notice of the hearing having been given to the student and . parent(s), the hearing was held on April 1, 2014, and the proceedings were recorded by digital voice recorder. J' C' did appear. Mr. & Mrs. Culley, parent(s) of J C did appear on behalf of their . Also present on behalf of the family was their attorney, Mr. Drumheiser. Additionally, Principals, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Robinson, and Ms. Baumgardner, Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Kirkpatrick, Director of Special Education, Mrs. Wilson, and Superintendent, Dr. Withum represented the Administration. Also present on behalf of the board of directors was Mx. Michael Cassidy, the district's solicitor. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On January 17, 2014, while being questioned by school personnel, 3" C' , was believed to be under the influence of a controlled substance. 2. On January 17, 2014, staff attempted to direct 3' C ; to the office and pushed through them with body, then hands. 3. On January 17, 2014, the police were called and arrived. .T G was placed in an Emergency Safety Physical Assist. J' . C refused to cooperate with an administrative search. 4. On January 17, 2014, J' C' . parents were called and upon arriving at school took - , home before the nurse was able to assess : Later, school administration called to explain that pursuant to school board Policy 227, a drug test would be need to be administered. J C- did not comply with this directive. 5. On January 24, 2014, an informal building level hearing was held during which the requirement of a drug test was again explained. The administration of consequences for the January 17, 2014 incident were delayed due to a proposed settlement agreement between the Culley's and the school district. The settlement agreement was never finalized. 6. On March 20 and 21, 2014, J C' - was repeatedly insubordinate, not complying with the direction of the building administrators. 7. On March 28, 2014, another informal building level hearing was held with Mr. Robinson, Ms. Baumgardner, Mr. & Mrs. Culley and J' C at which the administration informed the Culley's that a formal student disciplinary hearing would occur. 8. On April 1, 2014, during the formal student disciplinary hearing the subcommittee of' the board of directors found T C to be in violation of Board Policy 218 — Student Discipline. RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE The Committee assigned to hear and report a recommendation in this matter reports that the foregoing facts were duly established at the hearing and finds the testimony given by the district administration to be honest and forthcoming. The Committee assigned to hear this matter recommends the following: 1. Per. the parents' request, and in reliance upon the recommendation by the student's treating physician, the student immediately shall be placed on homebound instruction upon receipt of proper documentation, pending the outcome of the proceedings described below. If, in the interim, the student's treating physician provides a written recommendation that the student is physically capable of attending CPAVTS for regular morning session, then homebound instruction will be modified to allow for half-day instruction (provided CPAVTS is in agreement). 2. The committee is recommending that the student be expelled though the end of the 2014-15 academic year, and be permitted to return to school for the 2015-16 academic year, provided the student has been cleared administratively to return. That being said, the committee is recommending that the Board hold in abeyance any official action on the recommendation for expulsion, pending completion of the evaluation under IDEA and, if necessary, a manifestation determination, as discussed below. 3. In the interim, CVSD will (to the extent possible) expedite completion of the evaluation requested by the parents under IDEA. The Board will hold in abeyance any further action on the student disciplinary proceeding, pending completion of the initial processes under IDEA. If the initial evaluation determines that the student does not have a disability for purposes of the IDEA, then CVSD will proceed with expulsion. If the initial evaluation determines the student does have a disability for purposes of the IDEA, then a manifestation determination will be made by the IEP team, to determine whether the behaviors for which the student is being disciplined are a manifestation of that disability. If the IEP team determines that the behaviors are a manifestation, then regular protections afforded under the IDEA will kick in, in terms of dealing with the disciplinary issues. If the IFP determines that the behaviors are not a manifestation, then CVSD will proceed with expulsion. 4. In terms of any expulsion, to the extent the student is of compulsory school age, CVSD is agreeing to waive the standard 30 -day period under Chapter 12 regulations and agree to immediately provide educational services. If the student is expelled, CVSD is not agreeing to provide homebound instruction through the end of the 2014-15 school year. CVSD reserves the right to place the student in an appropriate alternative educational setting, to the extent the school district is able to do so under any state or federal laws or regulations. 5. During any expulsion, the student shall not be permitted on school property without prior permission, and will not be permitted to participate in any extra -curricular activities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Board has jurisdiction over the proceeding and the student pursuant to Section §1318 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P,S. §13-1318. 2. The conduct described in the foregoing Findings of Fact constitutes "disobedience or misconduct" under Section §1318 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. §13-1318, and is a violation of the Code of Student Conduct and the Student Discipline Policy, as set forth in Cumberland Valley School District Policy No. 218, in that J C was believed to be under the influence of a controlled substance, pushed through staff with • body, then hands, was put into a Emergency Safety Physical Assist, was picked up by parents before the school nurse could assess , refused a drug test, has not followed through with the required drug and alcohol assessment as set forth by Policy 227, and was repeatedly insubordinate. 3. Such conduct may be redressed by permanent expulsion from school pursuant to Section §1318 of the Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. §13-1318, and by the Code of Student Conduct and the Student Discipline Policy. 4. The matter has been heard in a formal hearing before a duly authorized Committee of the Board after appropriate notice of the hearing to the student and - parent(s). DECISION AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2014, upon receipt of the foregoing recommendation of the Committee of this Board, on the motion of Mr./Ms. Griffie and seconded by Mr./Ms. Walker and upon the affirmative vote of 9 directors, with 0 negative votes and _0 abstentions (said votes being recorded upon roll call), it is the decision of said Board: 1. To accept and adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact as the findings of the Board; 2. To accept and adopt the foregoing Conclusions of Law as the conclusions of the Board; 3. To accept the recommendations of the Board sub -committee with respect to placing J C on homebound instruction pending the outcome of the proceedings described above for violation of CVSD Policy 218 and 24 P.S. §13-1318. 4. To direct the Superintendent, or designee, to send forthwith photocopies of this Decision under the official seal of the district to the student and parent(s), by certified mail, return receipt requested, and to forthwith give oral notice of the decision to said persons. ATTEST: Secreta'ry (Seal) By the Board of School Directors )aulgtes )a-44444._ President (NOTE: PURSUANT TO SECTION 5 OF THE LOCAL AGENCY LAW, 2 Pa.C.S.A. 752, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THI DATE OF THIS DECISION.) Exhibit B CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT 6746 Carlisle Pike • Mechanicsburg, PA 17050-1796 • 717-697-8261 May 6, 2014 Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Culley Mr. Justin Culley 6977 Wertzville Road Enola, PA 17025 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Culley: Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested The purpose of this letter is to inform you of action taken by the Board at its meeting on April 7, 2014. The Board took action for your son, Justin Culley to be placed on homebound instruction for the remainder of the 2013-2014 school year. A signed copy of the resolution is included with this letter. It is always difficult for the Board to make a decision that affects a student in this manner. Nevertheless, the Board feels this action is appropriate given the seriousness of the incident. Sincerely, Steve Kirkpatrick Assistant Superintendent ms enc. cc: Mr. Nick Wilson, Principal, Class of 2016 Gary Quigley, Director of Secondary Education Dr. Frederick Withum, Superintendent This is being served upon you by both certified mail (return receipt requested) and by regular first-class mail. Should you fail or refuse to accept the certified mail, receipt of the regular mail will be presumed in the absence of its return by the postal service. Exhibit C CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT ;Ie Pike • Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 • 016H26516546 $07.199 05/07/2014 I Mailed From 17050 US POSTAGE Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Colley 6977 Wertzville Road Enola, PA 17025 170253013-1N RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER laffPNITIMPOWrhahhlintiaM Exhibit D Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Culley CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT July 29, 2014 In Re: Justin CuIley 1 Student Discipline Proceeding Dear Mr. and Mrs. CuIley: Enclosed herewith is a copy of the Student Discipline Resolution approved by the Board of School Directors of Cumberland Valley School District on April 7, 2014 imposing discipline upon your son, Justin CuIley, resulting from various infractions of the Code of Student Conduct. Pursuant to an agreement negotiated on your behalf by your attorney, Phillip Drumheiser, Esquire, the Board of School Directors agreed to hold in abeyance the expulsion recommended by the Student Discipline Hearing Committee, pending completion of an initial evaluation under IDEA and, if necessary, a manifestation determination. As you are aware, the initial evaluation under IDEA determined that your son, Justin Culley, is not eligible for special education services. Consequently, Cumberland Valley School District is imposing the expulsion approved by the Board of School Directors in the enclosed Student Discipline Resolution, effective immediately. Additionally, effective immediately as a consequence of the expulsion, Cumberland Valley School District will no longer be providing home bound instruction. Given that your child, Justin Culley, is of compulsory school age, he is still subject to compulsory school attendance, even though expelled, and therefore must be provided an education. The initial responsibility for providing the required eddcation rests with you, as Justin's parents, through placement in another school, tutorial or correspondence study, or another educational program approved by the Superintendent for Cumberland Valley School District. Under Pennsylvania law, you have thirty (30) days from the date of expulsion to submit to the School District written evidence that the required education is being provided to your child. If you are unable to provide the required education within thirty (30) days from the date of expulsion, Cumberland Valley School District is required, within ten (10) days of receipt of notification from you, to make provisions for your son's education. As set forth in the enclosed Student Discipline Resolution, Cumberland Valley School District has agreed to waive the thirty -day period under Chapter 12 Regulations and to immediately provide educational services to your son. If you desire Cumberland Valley School District to provide educational services, please contact Steve Kirkpatrick at 717-506-3303 to arrange for placement in an alternative education program. Very truly yours, CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT si Frederick S. Withum, Ill, Ed.D., Superintendent CC: Judy Baumgardner, High School Principal Michael J. Cassidy From: Walz, Mark [MWalz@sweetstevens.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 3:33 PM To: Michael J. Cassidy Subject: FW: J. CuIley / Cumberland Valley From: Walz, Mark Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 4:45 PM To: Phillip Drumheiser (pdrumheiser@epix.net) Subject: J. Culley / Cumberland Valley Phil, Page 1 of 2 I just wanted to confirm a few items from our conversation this afternoon. Please correct me if my recollection of our conversation is different from yours. I understand that you are on the same page procedurally with the recommendation from the school board committee regarding discipline for Justin Culley. Specifically, while we understand that you disagree substantively on whether any discipline is warranted, you agree to the procedural steps that will be taken by the District. As we discussed, the District will: a) Hold in abeyance any expulsion until the school district completes an expedited evaluation for IDEA eligibility. b) If Justin is found IDEA eligible, to hold a manifestation review meeting, and ultimately to develop an IEP. c) Immediately approve the request for homebound instruction as requested by Justin's physician and parents. d) Approve of part -day tech school instruction and part -day homebound instruction if approved by Justin's physician. e) In the event an expulsion ultimately takes effect, the District agrees to waive the 30 day period under Chapter 12 and will immediately provide educational services. Although the District has agreed to your client's request for homebound instruction at your request and pursuant to his physician's instructions, such instruction should only be provided for a limited time, and we do not anticipate that such instruction will continue into the 2014-2015 school year. Finally, I wanted to be clear about our conversation regarding whether a manifestation hearing was required for Justin prior to the board committee hearing earlier this week. As I explained earlier, the District has provided Justin with the protections that Section 504 provides to Students with disabilities, even though your clients had not yet signed any 504 service agreement with the District. Those protections require that the District not discipline a student for conduct that is caused by the Student's disability. My understanding is that the board committee considered that factor and considered your position thoroughly about whether the conduct was caused by Justin's disability. The only substantive difference between that procedure and a "manifestation determination" for a "thought to be eligible student" is the inquiry about whether the behavior was caused by the IEP not being implemented. As Justin is not eligible and has no IEP or IEP team, such an inquiry is not necessary. We look forward to reviewing the amended due process complaint when you have it completed, and then to meeting with you in a resolution meeting to attempt to resolve the outstanding issues that may remain between the parties. 7/24/2014 Page 2 of 2 Very Truly Yours, Mark Mark W. Cheramie Walz SWEET 1 STEVENS 1 KATZ 1 WILLIAMS 331 E. Butler Avenue New Britain, PA 18901 215-345-9111 mwalz@sweetstevens.com www.sweetstevens.com THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENTS NAMED ABOVE. This message and any attachments may be an attorney-client communication or may be protected by lawful privilege or statutory confidentiality requirements and as such is privileged and confidential and not subject to disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone (215-345-9111) or return email and delete the material from any computer, without copying. Thank you. 7/24/2014 VERIFICATION I, STEVE KIRKPATRICK, Assistant Superintendent for Cumberland Valley School District, hereby swear under penalty of law that the facts set forth herein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: - 21-1Y By' J Steve Kirkpatrick, Assistant Superintendent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Aq4 day of , 2014, the undersigned does hereby certify that he did this date serve a copy o the foregoing upon the Plaintiffs counsel by causing same to be deposited in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, at Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Phillip A. Drumheiser, Esquire P. 0. Box 890 Carlisle, PA 17013 JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER JERRY R. DUFFIF, RICHARD W. STEWART EDMUND G. MYERS DAVID W. DELUCE j01 IN A. STAT LER JEFFREY B. RI TTIG MARK C. DUFFLE JOHN R. NIN0SKY MICHAEL J. CASSIDY .MEIJSSA P. GREEVY \ A!)E D. MANLEY David D. Buell, Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 pHNsoN DUFFIE 1914-2014 July 29, 2014 BARR17". B. (.OE-HRI.EiN W. J)ARR! :N PO14ELL ANTHONY'1'. LUCID() CAROLYN B. MCCLAIN JOHN A. I.:LCY MATTHEW RIDLEY KAREN L. M.ASCIo BRIAN W. CARTER OF COUNSEL HORACE A. JOHNSON C. ROY WEIDNER. JR. Wizurr::l 'S EXT. No. 138 E-MAIL rn,jcr 'jcls%r.com Re: J. C., a minor by student's parents Kevin and Denise Culley v. Cumberland Valley School District Board of Directors No. 14-3801 Dear Mr. Buell: Enclosed please find an original and four (4) copies of a Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate Order as well as three (3) copies of a Proposed Order in the aforementioned matter. Please file the original and retain as many copies as necessary and forward a copy to the Court Administrator's Office along with the enclosed letter. I have also enclosed two (2) stamped envelopes for the parties set forth on the schedule of distribution on the Proposed Order. Please return any additional time stamped copies in the self-addressed, stamped envelope that I have provided. Very truly yours, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Michael J. Cassidy MJC:bf:642347 Enclosures cc Phillip A. Drumheiser, Esquire JERRY R. DUFFIE RICHARD IV, STEWART EDMUND G. MYRR,S DAVID IV. DEUCE JOHN A. STATI,ER JEFFREY B. RETTIG MARK C. DUFFIE JOHN R. 1NINOSKY MICHAEL J. CASSIDY MELISSA P. GREEVY WADE D. MANI..EY LAW OFFICES JoHNsoN DUFFIE 1914-2014 July 29, 2014 Melissa H. Calvanelli, District Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 BARRIE R. GEIIRLI?IN W. DARREN POWELL ANTHONYT. LUCIDU CAROLYN B. ti7CCLAIN JOAN A. LUC'ro MATTHEW RIDLF.Y KAREN L. \d.>,SCI0 BRIAN W. CARTER OF COUNSEL HORACE A. JOIINsON C. ROY WEIDNER. JR, WRITER'S EXT. NO.I 8 E-MAIL mjcCsidsw.com Re: J. C., a minor by student's parents Kevin and Denise CuIley v. Cumberland Valley School District Board of Directors No. 14-3801 Dear Ms. Calvanelli: Enclosed please find a Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate Order as well as a Proposed Order. Please forward the same to Judge Masland for his consideration. Thank you. MJC:bf:642347 Enclosures Very truly yours, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Michael J. Cassidy 301 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 109 LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043.0109 WWW.JDSW.COM. 71.7.7614540 FAX: 71.7.761.301.5 MAIL@ JDSW.COM JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER, I.C. J.C., a minor, by student's parents Kevin: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF and DENISE CULLEY, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Petitioners v. : 14-3801 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND VALLEY SCHOOL : DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, : Defendant ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this r7 ' day of August, 2014, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, we ORDER and DIRECT as follows: 1. Our order of July 3, 2014, restoring the child to "full classroom activities" is VACATED. Pending further order of court, or administrative resolution via the due process hearing scheduled for August 7, 2014, and pursuant to the "Stay Put" Rule in 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), the child shall remain in the educational placement effective on June 27, 2014, namely "homebound instruction." 2. The hearing scheduled for August 11, 2014 on the Petition for Hearing De Novo is cancelled. Either party may request a hearing following a resolution of the aforesaid due process proceedings. By the Court: Ibert H. Masland, i Michael J. Cassidy, Esquire c-; r,.., Attorney for Defendantc' P.O. Box 109, Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 fri CO Xt- z = Phillip A. Drumheiser, Esquire c cie. c`; Attorney for Petitioners cc 7=, P.O. Box 890, Carlisle, PA 17013 'Ma = -=-