H. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, 2:13-cv-00889

Background

Plaintiffs Heath and Rebecca Havey sued individually and on behalf of their son Everett, alleging denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and related harms under the IDEA, California law, the ADA, and Section 504, and seeking damages and equitable relief.
Defendants originally included the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, its Board, several district officials, the California Department of Education (CDE), and the State Superintendent; plaintiffs settled and entered judgment against Dry Creek, leaving the CDE as a defendant.
Plaintiffs demanded a jury trial; the CDE moved to strike the jury demand as to several causes of action (Second, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh) arguing those claims are equitable or non-jury issues.
The core dispute concerned whether claims arising from overlapping facts that invoke IDEA (equitable), ADA/Section 504 and state-law discrimination/retaliation (legal) can be tried to a jury, or whether the equitable nature of IDEA claims precludes a jury trial for the related issues.
The court found the case involves intertwined equitable and legal claims, including allegations of intentional discrimination, retaliation, and physical/psychological abuse that go beyond pure IDEA FAPE disputes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on claims implicating the IDEA	Plaintiffs argue their claims include legal claims (intentional discrimination, retaliation, damages) that entitle them to a jury	CDE contends IDEA claims are equitable and not subject to jury trial; related state IDEA-implementing claims likewise non-jury	Denied — jury demand preserved because legal claims for damages overlap and are intertwined with equitable IDEA claims
Whether California Education Code (§56000 et seq.) claims are jury-triable when they implement the IDEA	Plaintiffs assert these claims permit damages and are distinct from pure equitable IDEA relief	CDE argues such state-law claims merely implement IDEA and are non-jury equitable matters	Denied — overlap with legal claims and factual interdependence preclude striking jury demand
Whether ADA/Section 504 retaliation and interference claims are jury-triable	Plaintiffs contend ADA/504 claims alleging intentional discrimination/retaliation support compensatory damages and a jury trial	CDE cites Ninth Circuit authority limiting jury trials on certain retaliation claims	Denied — where ADA/504 claims allege intentional or deliberate indifference and seek damages, jury trial right applies and overlaps with equitable claims
Whether the court may bifurcate bench and jury issues to avoid jury on equitable matters	Plaintiffs oppose bifurcation as it would impair jury rights given intertwined evidence	CDE implicitly supports separating equitable IDEA issues from legal damages claims	Denied — issues are too intertwined; bifurcation would risk impairing the right to jury trial

Key Cases Cited

Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2011) (IDEA does not necessarily cover claims of physical or emotional abuse by school officials)
Mark H. v. Hamamoto, 620 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2010) (compensatory damages under Section 504 available for intentional or deliberately indifferent conduct)
Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008) (Section 504 compensatory damages available when allegations go beyond mere FAPE violations)
Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing jury trial availability for retaliation claims)
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) (equitable claims may not be tried first if doing so would impair jury trial rights on legal claims)
Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) (constitutional concerns when bench and jury trials are ordered for overlapping issues)
Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA and Section 504 claims are analytically similar)