46 F.4th 965
9th Cir.2022Background:
- Plaintiffs: four special-education students (and their parents) sued on behalf of a putative statewide class of California special-needs students after K–12 schools shifted to remote instruction in March 2020. Plaintiffs alleged IEPs were not updated, accommodations were insufficient, and students were denied a FAPE.
- Defendants: hundreds of entities — every California school district, the California Department of Education (CDE), the State Superintendent, State Special Schools (e.g., School for the Deaf/Blind), and other state actors.
- Relief sought: declaratory judgment, injunctive relief (reassessment, return to in-person instruction, continuing services during remote learning), compensatory education from local districts, and attorneys’ fees.
- District court: dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA; plaintiffs appealed.
- Ninth Circuit: (1) held plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue districts they did not attend and State Special Schools they did not use; (2) held claims against CDE and the Superintendent seeking injunctive/declaratory relief were moot after schools returned to in-person instruction; (3) affirmed that plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies as to their claims against the districts where they were enrolled; (4) rejected plaintiffs’ systemic and inadequacy exceptions to exhaustion and declined to address futility or an unpled settlement-breach theory.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue districts and State Special Schools not attended | La Mar "juridical link" allows class rep to sue related defendants statewide | Named plaintiffs lack personal injury from defendants who did not harm them | Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to sue defendants who did not injure them; juridical-link theory does not save these claims here |
| Mootness of claims against CDE and State Superintendent after schools reopened | Return to in-person instruction does not moot claims for declaratory relief or attorneys’ fees; compensatory-education claim preserves case | Reopening and state renunciation of closures moots injunctive/declaratory relief; fees/decl. alone do not confer jurisdiction | Claims for injunctive relief against CDE/Superintendent and related declaratory claims are moot; compensatory-education claims survive only against local districts (and plaintiffs did not seek comp ed from CDE) |
| Whether IDEA exhaustion is required for alleged denial of FAPE during remote instruction | Exhaustion not required because plaintiffs seek systemic relief and constitutional claims; OAH lacks authority for requested relief | Fry and IDEA require exhaustion for claims seeking relief for denial of a FAPE, even if also framed as constitutional | IDEA exhaustion required for claims seeking compensatory education for denial of FAPE; dismissal for failure to exhaust affirmed |
| Applicability of exhaustion exceptions (systemic, inadequacy, futility, settlement-breach) | Systemic: CDE guidance was a de facto mandatory policy; Inadequacy: OAH cannot grant classwide constitutional relief and would be overwhelmed; Futility/settlement: exhaustion would be futile; settlement-breach is a contract claim | Systemic requires an agency decision/regulation or binding policy that caused injury; unnamed class members need not exhaust; futility not presented in district court; breach-not-alleged in complaint | Systemic and inadequacy exceptions inapplicable (no binding statewide rule identified; relief sought is for denial of FAPE). Court declined to consider futility on appeal and refused to adjudicate an unpled settlement-breach theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires concrete injury fairly traceable to defendant)
- Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rts. Org., 426 U.S. 26 (class representatives must allege personal injury for Article III standing)
- Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 580 U.S. 154 (IDEA exhaustion required for claims seeking relief for denial of a FAPE, even if framed under other federal laws)
- Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1992) (IDEA exhaustion exceptions: systemic, inadequacy, futility)
- Doe ex rel. Brockhuis v. Ariz. Dep’t of Educ., 111 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 1997) (systemic exception requires an agency decision/regulation or binding policy causing the injury)
- La Mar v. H & B Novelty & Loan Co., 489 F.2d 461 (9th Cir. 1973) (articulated a "juridical link" concept in the Rule 23 context)
- Brach v. Newsom, 38 F.4th 6 (9th Cir. 2022) (reopening of schools mooted similar pandemic-related claims)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (court must address Article III standing before merits)