IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 29, 2010
R.B.,A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENT, PLAINTIFF,
MASTERY CHARTER SCHOOL, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe
AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2010, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for a Mandatory IDEA Stay-Put Injunction [doc. no. 2], Defendant Mastery's Response in Opposition [doc. no. 5], Defendant District's Response in Opposition [doc. no. 9], conference between all parties held on December 2, 2010, and evidentiary hearings held on December 16 and 17, 2010, Plaintiff's Motion is hereby GRANTED. Relief afforded to R.B. is ORDERED as follows:
1) Defendant Mastery must reinstate R.B.'s placement at Mastery Charter school no later then January 5, 2011, unless the Parties agree to a mutually acceptable alternative date;
2) Counsel shall provide the Court written joint status reports in writing which:
i.) Confirms that R.B. has been re-enrolled in Mastery, or that a mutually acceptable alternative agreement about her placement has been reached, by January 5, 2011; and,
ii) Confirms that R.B. is in actual attendance at Mastery, or if an alternative agreement has been reached, that she is in attendance at the alternate location, by January 10, 2011.
3) All Parties are advised that given the time-sensitive nature of reinstating R.B.'s educational placement, the Court will not tolerate any delay.
Upon consideration of Defendant Philadelphia School District's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Injunctive Relief [doc. no. 15] and Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [doc. no. 24], it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Philadelphia School District's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
3) Upon consideration of Defendant Mastery Charter School's Amended
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint [doc. no. 16],*fn1
Plaintiff's Memoranda of Law in Opposition [doc. nos.18], and
Defendant Mastery's Reply thereto [doc. no. 20], it is hereby ORDERED
that Defendant's Motion is DENIED.
This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce these Orders.
It is so ORDERED.
BY THE COURT: