No. 23-464

Matthew Boermeester v. Ainsley Carry, et al.

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2023-11-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: confrontation cross-examination due-process educational-discipline fair-process student-rights title-ix witness-credibility
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw ERISA DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-12-08 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether when an educational institution that is a recipient of Federal funds seeks to impose a lengthy suspension or expulsion on a student for alleged Title IX sexual misconduct and the credibility of witnesses is material to the decisionmaker's finding, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses at a hearing before neutral decision-makers are necessary elements of a fair process

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether when an educational institution that is a recipient of Federal funds seeks to impose a lengthy suspension or expulsion on a student for alleged Title IX sexual misconduct and the credibility of witnesses is material to the decisionmaker’s finding, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses at a hearing before neutral decision-makers are necessary elements of a fair process.

Docket Entries

2023-12-11
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-01
Rescheduled.
2023-12-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
2023-11-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2023.
2023-11-02
Waiver of right of respondent Ainsley Carry, et al. to respond filed.
2023-10-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 4, 2023)

Attorneys

Ainsley Carry, et al.
Scott Philip DixlerHorvitz & Levy LLP, Respondent
Scott Philip DixlerHorvitz & Levy LLP, Respondent
Matthew Boermeester
Mark McClellan HathawayHathaway Parker Inc, Petitioner
Mark McClellan HathawayHathaway Parker Inc, Petitioner