K.I. et al v. Montgomery Public Schools, No. 2:2006cv00905 - Document 106 (M.D. Ala. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 79 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, as further set out in order. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
K.I. et al v. Montgomery Public Schools Doc. 106 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION K.I., by and through her mother and next friend, JENNIE I., and JENNIE I., individually, PLAINTIFFS, v. MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DEFENDANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-905-MEF WO - Do Not Publish MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Jennie I., the mother of a child afflicted with arthrogryposis and the child seek review of an unfavorable administrative decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ) and bring claims pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. ยง 749 for education in the least restrictive environment. One of the motions pending before this Court is the alternative motion for judgment on the pleadings made as an alternative motion to Defendant Montgomery Public Schools motion for summary judgment. Because the Court deems it appropriate to address the merits of this case in the context of the motion for summary judgment and not in the context of a motion for judgment on the pleadings and because all of Defendant Montgomery Public Schools arguments in support of the motion appear predicated on matters beyond the pleadings,1 it is hereby ORDERED that the motion 1 In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a Court may consider only the pleadings, in this case the Complaint and Answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Dockets.Justia.com for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. # 79) is DENIED. The alternative motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 79) remains pending. th Done this the 28 day of March, 2011. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
