D.F. v. Schools
804 F. Supp. 2d 250
D.N.J.2011Background
- D.F. sues Collingswood Public Schools under the IDEA seeking compensatory education for the period without a one-to-one aide and for attorneys’ fees/costs.
- An IEP was developed on Sept. 4, 2008, but D.F. was placed in a regular kindergarten class after a request to avoid a self-contained class.
- D.F. filed a due process petition on Jan. 21, 2009 seeking evaluations, compensatory education, and a proper IEP; multiple petitions followed through 2010.
- The ALJ issued orders between 2009 and 2010 addressing placement, home instruction, and an out-of-district placement (Archway School).
- D.F. moved to Georgia in 2010; Collingswood’s August 2010 order dismissed petitions as moot; the instant complaint was filed in 2010, and both sides moved for summary judgment.
- The court held the dispute moot due to the move to Georgia, and also denied D.F.’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding no prevailing party status; even if not moot, the court found no compensatory education entitlement for the period without a 1:1 aide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of compensatory education claim | D.F. seeks past compensatory education relief despite moving out of state. | Move to Georgia moots the claims; relief cannot be provided. | Moot; claims dismissed. |
| Jurisdiction to review ALJ decisions after mootness | Court retains jurisdiction to review the ALJ decisions despite mootness. | Mootness bars review; no effective relief available. | moot; no jurisdiction to grant relief. |
| Entitlement to compensatory education for lack of 1:1 aide | Period without a 1:1 aide constitutes denial of FAPE. | IEP in place; aide provided starting Jan. 8, 2009; not a denial. | Not entitled; no denial of FAPE established. |
| Attorney’s fees and costs for the 2009 order | Prevailing party status due to successful petition. | No prevailing party; improper request procedures; fees denied. | Fees denied; not prevailing party. |
| Relation between relief obtained and litigation | Relief flowed from due process petition. | Relief did not flow from petition due to procedural flaws; not causally linked. | No causal connection; no fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mary T. v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 575 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2009) (compensatory education scope under IDEA; prompt district response matters)
- L.E. v. Ramsey Bd. of Ed., 435 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 2006) (defer to ALJ factual findings; modified de novo review)
- S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist., 336 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2003) (deference to ALJ findings; preponderance of the evidence standard)
- Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1993) (noted as applicable to judicial review framework for IDEA)
- Ferren v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 612 F.3d 712 (3d Cir. 2010) (compensatory education remedies; limits when timely actions taken)
- P.N. v. Clementon Bd. of Educ., 442 F.3d 848 (3d Cir. 2006) (causal connection between litigation and relief; prevailing party analysis)