A dispositive order granting the Respondents' motion to dismiss was entered on September 23, 2015.Complainants are the biological parents of [B.D.], was 19 years old when his parents filed the complaint initiating this instant action. [B.] is an independent adult with no court-appointed guardian. [B.] moved from the CSD, his school district of residence, to [ ] in the summer of 2012. After attending high school at CSD for his freshman and sophomore years (2010-12), [B.'s] parents unilaterally enrolled him in the [ ], a non-residential treatment facility in [ ], for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years.

The Complainants alleged that, from the fall of 2010 through July 30, 2013, the Respondents violated [B.'s] rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The remedies sought in the latest complaint are compensatory education for [B.] and reimbursement to the Complainants for all costs incurred by them after July 30, 2013 in relation to [B.'s] enrollment in an alternative education placement.

On or about August 24, 2015, the Respondents filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the following:? The substantive claims raised in the present due process complaint are barred as having been addressed by ALJ Scase in her decision regarding the first due process complaint and in her order dismissing the second due process complaint.? [B.] is no longer a resident of the Respondents school district and area education agency.? The alleged violations are barred by the two year statute of limitations.? The Complainants lack standing to raise claims in [B.'s] name inasmuch as [B.] has been an adult since [ ] 2014.? The Iowa Department of Education has no jurisdiction over the Complainants' Section 504 and ADA claims.

The dispositive basis of the Respondents' motion to dismiss is that the Iowa Department of Education has no jurisdiction over the present claims. It is not necessary to analyze any of the other bases in the motion.

A state department of education (SEA) has no jurisdiction over alleged violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Unlike the IDEA, these are civil rights statutes. The IDEA is a funding statute, and specifically confers jurisdiction over alleged violations of that statute to SEAs. No such jurisdiction is conferred to SEAs under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Complainants' third due process complaint, filed with the Iowa Department of Education on July 31, 2015, was dismissed in its entirety.