595 F. App'x 698
9th Cir.2014Background
- G.M., a student with disabilities, and his parents appealed the grant of summary judgment for Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (the District) after administrative proceedings contesting special-education services for the 2009–2010 school year.
- Parents sought a default judgment at the administrative level for the District’s alleged failure to file a responsive pleading within 10 days of service; ALJ denied the default request.
- Parents argued the District denied G.M. a free appropriate public education (FAPE); ALJ found the District offered FAPE and that G.M. remained in his preferred placement.
- The ALJ relied on an August 28, 2009 IEP meeting (and treated any deficiencies in an August 5 meeting as cured by the later meeting).
- Parents brought claims under the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, California state law (seeking money damages), and a § 1983 claim against the California Department of Education; district court granted summary judgment for the District and awarded fees.
- Parents requested judicial notice of later documents and a proposed stipulation; the court denied those requests as moot or inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred by refusing default for failure to timely file a response | District failed to file a pleading within 10 days and default should be entered | IDEA requires only that District send a response to parents; due process hearing remedies inadequate response | No error; default not warranted because statute/regulation only requires a response and hearing provides remedy |
| Whether G.M. was offered a FAPE for 2009–2010 | IEP process and services were inadequate, denying educational benefits | IEP(s) and services provided were appropriate; G.M. remained in placement and received benefits | ALJ’s finding that FAPE was offered was supported by evidence; no denial of educational benefits |
| Whether ALJ could rely on August 28, 2009 IEP despite earlier defective notice | Earlier (Aug 5) IEP was procedurally deficient; Aug 28 should be excluded | Aug 28 meeting cured procedural defects and was within issues preserved for hearing | Court upheld consideration of Aug 28 IEP; any earlier defect cured by later meeting |
| Section 504 claim: deliberate indifference / denial of services | District acted with deliberate indifference and denied benefits | No deliberate indifference; no denial of educational benefits | Summary judgment for District affirmed; plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference or loss of benefits |
| State-law claims for money damages against the District | Claims valid and actionable | Claims barred by California Government Claims Act for failure to comply with claim prerequisites | State-law damage claims barred by Gov’t Claims Act; dismissal affirmed |
| Attorneys’ fees and stay-put re-litigation | Challenged fee award and attempted to re-litigate stay-put order | ALJ awarded fees under state procedures; stay-put moot due to promotion | Fee award not clearly erroneous; attempts to re-litigate stay-put denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Doug C. v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.) (standards for educational benefit and FAPE)
- A.M. ex rel. Marshall v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist., 627 F.3d 773 (9th Cir.) (test for denial of educational benefits)
- Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist., 337 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.) (later IEP meeting can cure earlier procedural defects)
- Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard under Section 504)
- Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621 (9th Cir.) (procedural rule on exhaustion/claims against public entities)
- Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934 (9th Cir.) (limits on § 1983 claims for IDEA violations)
- Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist., 559 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir.) (stay-put functions as an automatic preliminary injunction)
- Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of Am. v. USDA, 499 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.) (preliminary injunction legal conclusions binding)