KD Ex Rel. CL v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUC., HAWAII
665 F.3d 1110
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- K.D. is a minor with autism who attended Loveland, a private school, under a 2006-07 DOE settlement; DOE paid Loveland tuition for 2006-07 and the parties planned a transition to public school.
- DOE conducted an IEP process for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 school years, including observations and assessments, and proposed placements at Pearl Harbor Kai (PHK) rather than Loveland.
- C.L. contested observations and assessments, and the DOE finalized IEPs offering placement at PHK for 2007-08 and 2008-09, while Loveland enrollment continued unilaterally.
- C.L. ultimately requested a due process hearing in August 2008, challenging the 2007-08 IEPs and seeking tuition reimbursement; the district court affirmed the DOE’s decisions and denied stay-put relief for Loveland.
- The stay-put analysis focused on whether Loveland was KD’s current educational placement after the March 2007 settlement and whether the 2007-08 stay-put entitlement applied, with the court concluding the stay-put was not at Loveland and reimbursement for 2007-08 was time-barred.
- The appellate court reviews the district court’s IDEA compliance de novo, giving deference to state decisions on education policy and factual findings, and addresses both procedural and substantive aspects of the IEPs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KD’s stay-put placement was at Loveland during the pendency of the 2007-08 and 2008-09 proceedings | KD argues the 2007 settlement made Loveland his stay-put. | DOE contends the settlement did not place KD at Loveland; stay-put not applicable. | Loveland was not KD’s stay-put placement; only a time-limited tuition agreement existed. |
| Whether KD’s 2007-08 tuition reimbursement claim was timely under the 90-day rule for unilateral placements | Enrollment at Loveland was unilateral, so reimbursement should be timely under 90 days. | Placement was unilateral after March 2007; filing in August 2008 was within 90 days of unilateral placement? | The 2007-08 reimbursement claim was untimely under 302A-443(2). |
| Whether the 2007 and 2008 IEPs complied with IDEA requirements (procedural and substantive) | IEPs failed to provide adequate goals and proper placement; procedural flaws. | IEPs were developed with appropriate procedures and reasonably calculated to benefit KD; placement at PHK was appropriate. | IEPs complied with IDEA; KD’s substantive and procedural challenges were unpersuasive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (set the reasonable-benefits standard for FAPE)
- Amanda J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2001) (requires collaboration and due process protections in IEPs)
- Zvi D. v. Ambach, 694 F.2d 904 (2d Cir. 1982) (stay-put and placement questions tied to administrative decisions)
- Bayonne Bd. of Educ. v. R.S., 954 F. Supp. 933 (D.N.J. 1997) (contrasts settlement-based placement with explicit placement orders)
- Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. California Office of Admin. Hearings, 903 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1990) (placement decisions must be based on the IEP and not predestined)