E.F. v. Newport Mesa Unified School District, 684 F. App'x 629

E.F., a student with disabilities, and his parents appealed after a district court affirmed an ALJ decision and granted summary judgment to Newport Mesa Unified School District on claims under IDEA, ADA, §504, and California law.
The ALJ conducted a seven-day administrative hearing and issued a detailed 61-page decision; the district court gave that decision substantial deference and affirmed.
Central factual dispute: whether the District should have assessed E.F. for a high‑tech electronic assistive technology (AT) device earlier (before February 2012/2013) and whether any delay denied him a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Record showed the District provided nonelectronic AT and measured progress on speech/language goals; experts and evidence conflicted about when foundational skills exist to support electronic AT use.
Plaintiffs also alleged intentional discrimination under Title II of the ADA and §504, and asserted state-law claims; the district court granted summary judgment for the District on these counts and on procedural issues regarding discovery and amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether District denied FAPE by failing to assess for electronic AT before Feb 2012	District should have assessed E.F. earlier and his IEPs were inadequate without electronic AT	District reasonably delayed assessment pending development of foundational communicative/behavioral skills; IEPs were reasonably calculated to confer benefit	Affirmed: No FAPE denial except failure to assess between Feb 2012–Feb 2013; otherwise IEPs adequate
Whether denial of assessment constituted intentional discrimination under Title II/§504	Delay amounted to deliberate indifference/discrimination	Decision not to assess earlier was based on good‑faith evaluations, not deliberate indifference	Affirmed: Summary judgment for District; no deliberate indifference
Whether plaintiffs’ state‑law claims survive against District	State claims seek relief not barred	District immune under Eleventh Amendment	Affirmed: state claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity
Whether district court erred by entering summary judgment before close of discovery or denying further amendment	Plaintiffs needed additional discovery and opportunity to amend	Record was mature; plaintiffs had sufficient discovery; no abuse of discretion	Affirmed: No abuse; summary judgment proper and denial of further amendment not an abuse

Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for IDEA administrative findings and FAPE review)
Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1995) (deference to thorough ALJ decisions)
Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467 (9th Cir. 1993) (ALJ decision deference principles)
Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982) (FAPE standard: reasonably calculated to enable educational benefit)
A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 815 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard under ADA/§504)
Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554 (9th Cir.) (Eleventh Amendment immunity for state civil claims against school districts)
Oswalt v. Resolute Indus., Inc., 642 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Portland Retail Druggists Ass’n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641 (9th Cir.) (adequacy of discovery before summary judgment)
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719 (9th Cir.) (standards for leave to amend after summary judgment)