75 F. Supp. 3d 225
D.D.C.2014Background
- B.D., a child eligible for special education under IDEA with multiple disabilities, received in‑home instruction after public/private placements proved inadequate in 2009–2011.
- DCPS developed a 2011 IEP recommending placement at a private special‑education school; parents rejected that placement and paid for private tutoring and occupational therapy.
- Parents filed a due process complaint (Jan. 9, 2012). The hearing officer (HOD, Mar. 9, 2012) found DCPS denied B.D. a FAPE Aug–Oct 2011 and Oct 2011–2012, ordered reimbursement for services, awarded 5 hrs/wk OT for three months, required more assessments, and ordered interim 1:1 home instruction.
- OSSE/DMH later sought an appropriate residential treatment placement; DCPS identified Eagleton School, which accepted B.D.; parents challenged placement in a separate suit (B.D. II).
- This action (filed June 7, 2012) seeks review/enforcement of portions of the HOD, an injunction directing DCPS/DMH to find an appropriate residential placement, and attorneys’ fees; parties cross‑moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial review of HOD (adequacy re: compensatory services & assessment directives) | HOD failed to properly address compensatory education, order full recommended diagnostic program, and specify services during assessment/IEP period | HOD adequately addressed compensatory relief, declined hospital‑level placement, ordered assessments and interim instruction | Court: affirms HOD; plaintiffs failed to show HOD contradicted preponderance of evidence — judgment for District on Counts I |
| Enforcement of HOD (order directing DCPS to comply) | Court should order DCPS to fully implement HOD directives and reimburse tutors/OT | IDEA does not provide a federal cause of action to enforce a favorable HOD; implementation complaints go to state agency (OSSE); plaintiffs are not "aggrieved" | Court: Count II dismissed — not properly before federal court; judgment for District |
| Injunction to compel DCPS/DMH to find residential placement | Request injunction to compel identification and coordination with appropriate therapeutic residential facility | Relief is moot because (by decision date) B.D. has updated IEP recommending residential placement and District had located an accepted facility | Court: Count III moot — judgment for District |
| Attorneys' fees for administrative success | Seek $51,203 (+ costs) at $390/hr for lead counsel as prevailing party | District concedes prevailing‑party status but challenges hourly rate (proposes $382.50/hr) | Court: awards fees to plaintiffs; finds $390/hr reasonable and grants summary judgment for plaintiffs on Count IV |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute standard for trial)
- Angevine v. Smith, 959 F.2d 292 (D.C. Cir.) (burden to show hearing officer wrong by preponderance)
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (administrative exhaustion may be excused if futile)
- Porter v. Bd. of Trustees of Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 307 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.) (exhaustion/enforcement considerations)
- S.H. v. State‑Operated Sch. Dist. of the City of Newark, 336 F.3d 260 (3d Cir.) (deference to administrative factfinding)
- Lyons v. Smith, 829 F. Supp. 414 (D.D.C.) (review gives due weight to hearing officer)