Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.W., 21 F.4th 1125

B.W., a student with disabilities, completed kindergarten with disputes over special-education supports and began first grade under a contested IEP.
Capistrano’s proposed first‑grade placement and services were undisputedly inadequate; parents removed B.W. mid‑year, enrolled her in private school, and sought reimbursement for first and second grade tuition and services.
The ALJ found Capistrano denied a FAPE for multiple reasons (including allegedly inadequate first‑grade goals, inadequate placement/services, failure to file due process, and no second‑grade IEP); the district court affirmed only the placement/services FAPE denial but rejected the other ALJ findings while nonetheless awarding second‑grade reimbursement.
Capistrano appealed the reimbursement for second grade and occupational therapy; parents cross‑appealed remaining first‑grade issues.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court: (1) first‑grade IEP goals were adequate; (2) Capistrano had no obligation to file for due process to defend the first‑grade IEP; and (3) Capistrano was not required to develop a second‑grade IEP for a student parentally enrolled in private school absent a parental request; case remanded for attorneys’ fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of first‑grade IEP goals	Goals failed to address B.W.’s unique needs; team ignored parents’ expert and concerns; data/measurement unreliable	Goals addressed social/behavioral and academic needs; parents’ concerns and expert recommendations were considered; goals were measurable and described progress measures; prior data inconsistencies don’t render goals inadequate	Goals were adequate; district court’s finding affirmed
Whether Capistrano had to file due process to defend first‑grade IEP	District‑parent impasse over adequacy required the district to initiate due process	Under Cal. Educ. Code §56346(f), duty to file arises only if the district determines a nonconsented component is necessary to provide a FAPE; Capistrano made no such determination	No duty to file; Capistrano did not have to initiate due process
Duty to prepare an IEP for second grade after parental private placement and reimbursement claim	Filing for reimbursement (or launching proceedings) requires districts to prepare annual IEPs even if child is in private school	20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(A) treats parentally enrolled private‑school children as not requiring IEPs unless parents request one; reimbursement provision does not create a freestanding IEP duty	No freestanding duty; district need not develop an IEP for a student parentally placed in private school absent a parent request

Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (overview of IDEA FAPE and procedural remedies)
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress)
Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) (burden of proof on party challenging IEP)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (parents may recover private‑school tuition when district failed timely to offer a FAPE)
Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (deference to school authorities and standard for educational benefit under IDEA)
Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (district must continue IEP development when student remains in public school during proceedings)
Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 736 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1984) (framework for reimbursement claims and discussion on IEP revision during pendency of review)
Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2007) (material failure to implement an IEP can violate the IDEA)