Cupertino Union School District v. K.A. ex rel. S.A.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167057
| N.D. Cal. | 2014Background
- K.A., a student with regressive autism, moved into Cupertino Union School District and was eligible for special education under IDEA; disputes arose over development and implementation of his 2012–13 IEPs.
- February 16, 2012: IEP team met and discussed parents’ proposed goals and an independent assessment (Korb), but the meeting was continued; parents later filed a due process complaint and refused to attend a continuation meeting.
- March 29, 2012: District sent an IEP offer based on the February draft, inviting further parental input; ALJ found the offer predetermined and concluded a FAPE denial from March 29–May 31, 2012.
- August 29, 2012: District offered a temporary 90‑day home‑hospital IEP (parents accepted); implementation was erratic, many services missed, and District discontinued/resumed services without convening an IEP meeting.
- ALJ found the District materially failed to implement the August 29 IEP and denied K.A. a FAPE from August 29, 2012 to March 28, 2013, and awarded extensive compensatory services; District appealed; trial court reviewed administrative record and parties’ briefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether District predetermined March 29, 2012 IEP offer, denying FAPE | District: March 29 offer was not predetermined; it followed a February meeting with parental input and explicitly invited further input | Father/ALJ: District unilaterally finalized the IEP while parents refused to attend continuation, depriving participation | Court: Reversed ALJ — no predetermination; District reasonably offered revised IEP and invited further participation |
| 2. Whether District denied FAPE by refusing home‑hospital due to medication at May 31, 2012 meeting | District: law required physician documentation before home instruction; denial was lawful | Father: refusal was improper denial of services | (Not resolved here — ALJ had ruled for District; Father cross‑appealed separately) |
| 3. Whether District materially failed to implement Aug 29, 2012 home‑hospital IEP, denying FAPE | District: offered only 90 days and thus any lapse was limited; parents partly responsible for scheduling; District provided some services | Father/ALJ: District failed to implement required consultations and delivered sporadic services, so FAPE was denied through March 28, 2013 | Court: Affirmed ALJ — District materially failed to implement Aug 29 IEP, resulting in FAPE denial Aug 29, 2012–Mar 28, 2013 |
| 4. Appropriateness of ALJ’s compensatory remedy | District: award disproportionate, lacked evidentiary support; District should get credit for services provided | Father: seeks private placement and reimbursement | Court: Vacated ALJ’s compensatory award for lack of evidentiary support; remanded remedies to ALJ to develop evidence and tailor relief to K.A.’s present needs (limited to Aug 29, 2012–Mar 28, 2013) |
Key Cases Cited
- Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2007) (parents may litigate IDEA claims pro se on behalf of child)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2005) (burden of proof at administrative level)
- Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1993) (courts must give due weight to administrative proceedings)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (IEP must be reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit)
- N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural violations require showing of loss of educational opportunity to constitute denial of FAPE)
- M.L. v. Federal Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2005) (not all procedural errors require finding of FAPE denial)
- W.G. v. Bd. of Tr. of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992) (predetermination doctrine)
- Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (examples of serious parental‑participation infringement)
- Doug C. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2013) (when forced to choose between IDEA procedural requirements, act reasonably to promote IDEA purposes)
- Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489 (9th Cir. 1994) (compensatory education is equitable and fact specific)