I. v. Department of Education, 1:10-cv-00381

Marcus I. is an autistic student receiving IDEA services from Hawaii DOE; suit challenges May 2008 and May 2009 IEPs and related PWNs as not providing FAPE.
The court previously remanded two issues to the Hearing Officer to assess feasibility of implementing ESY, OT, and SLP services for 2009–10 and whether the May 2008 placement offer properly identified Baldwin High School.
On remand, the Hearing Officer found Baldwin High School could implement the required services and that the May 4, 2008 IEP placement language was specific enough to alert the mother to Baldwin as the proposed home school.
The court consolidated related appeals and limited review to the remanded issues, rejecting Marcus’s broader relitigation arguments.
The court ultimately affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decisions and entered judgment in the consolidated cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Baldwin High School could implement ESY, OT, and SLP services for 2009–10	Marcus I. argues Baldwin could not provide necessary services.	DOE contends Baldwin, with other agencies, could implement services.	No error; Baldwin could implement the services.
Whether May 2008 placement offer was specific enough to alert Marcus’s mother Baldwin was proposed	Mother was not clearly alerted to Baldwin as placement.	Language sufficiently alerted to Baldwin as home school.	Finding that the May 2008 offer was specific enough is supported.

Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 152 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1998) (stay when remanding a case to a hearing officer for additional findings)