DL v. District of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11161

Background

In 2005 six parents sued the District of Columbia alleging systemic failure to comply with IDEA’s Child Find and Part C→B transition requirements for preschoolers, seeking classwide injunctive relief.
The district court originally certified a broad class (vacated on appeal), later certified four narrower subclasses tied to discrete administrative stages: identification, timely evaluation, timely eligibility determination, and smooth transition from early intervention to preschool.
After extensive discovery and trials, the district court found the District liable for failing to identify large numbers of disabled preschoolers, missing eligibility-determination deadlines, and failing to ensure smooth transitions, and entered a comprehensive injunction with numerical benchmarks and programmatic remedies.
The District appealed, challenging mootness (named plaintiffs aged out), class certification under Rule 23/Wal‑Mart, and the scope/authority of the injunction and factual basis for remedies.
The D.C. Circuit affirmed: it applied the Geraghty “relation‑back” exception to mootness, upheld certification of the three contested subclasses under Rule 23, and sustained the district court’s statutory and discretionary authority to order the remedial benchmarks and programmatic relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of named plaintiffs’ individual claims	Relation‑back doctrine (Geraghty) preserves justiciability because district court error caused mootness	Case is moot because named plaintiffs aged out before subclasses were certified; relation‑back inapplicable	Relation‑back applies; case not moot (Geraghty controls); no obligation to substitute new plaintiffs
Rule 23 certification / commonality	Subclasses target discrete administrative failures susceptible to common proof and single injunctions	Even narrow subclasses still encompass varied reasons for failures and thus lack commonality/typicality under Wal‑Mart	Subclasses satisfied Rule 23(a) and (b)(2); common harms and common proof distinguish this from Wal‑Mart
Adequacy / Typicality of named representatives	Named parents remain adequate and typical despite mootness; they remain committed and were closely involved	Mootness of their individual claims makes representation presumptively inadequate	District court did not abuse discretion; adequacy and typicality satisfied (Geraghty and Rule 23 analyses)
Scope and authority of injunction under IDEA	Injunctive, structural relief is appropriate to remedy systemic Child Find and transition failures; court has broad equitable authority under 20 U.S.C. § 1415	IDEA remedies are primarily individualized; court exceeded authority by imposing systemwide benchmarks and deadlines	Court has authority to grant systemic injunctions under IDEA; benchmarks (e.g., percentages, timelines) and programmatic remedies were within discretion
Statutory interpretation and evidence for specific remedies	Benchmarks and timing align with IDEA, D.C. law, and record statistics showing systemic failures	Remedies misapply IDEA timing (start at parental consent), overrely on enrollment as proxy, and use flawed statistics	Remedies consistent with IDEA and D.C. Code timing; statistical proof and enrollment metrics are permissible; district court’s factual findings and discretionary remedies were not abused

Key Cases Cited

Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (foundational recognition of IDEA’s FAPE promise)
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (U.S. 2017) (clarified substantive scope of FAPE under IDEA)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requirement for class certification)
United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (U.S. 1980) (relation‑back exception to mootness for Rule 23 class actions)
Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013) (distinguishes FLSA collective actions from Rule 23 class actions in mootness context)
Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. 2009) (courts’ authority to grant appropriate equitable relief under IDEA)
Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (U.S. 1992) (principles on court supervision and restoring local control)
Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (deferential standard for reviewing remedies in IDEA cases)
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (contrast case on class breadth and individualized relief under IDEA)