Miguel Avila v. Spokane School District 81
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5532
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- G.A., a Spokane School District student, was evaluated in Dec. 2006 after parental concern about behavior and possible autism; the school psychologist found behaviors of concern but not IDEA eligibility; Mrs. Avila signed a form agreeing with the evaluation.
- A private physician diagnosed Asperger’s in Oct. 2007; the District reevaluated and in April 2008 concluded G.A. was eligible for services under the autism category; IEP negotiations followed and an IEP was signed in Feb. 2009.
- The District conducted another reevaluation (~2009), which the Avilas disputed; the Avilas requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense and the District denied it.
- The Avilas filed a due process complaint on Apr. 26, 2010; the ALJ ruled the District’s 2010 reevaluation was appropriate, denied the IEE, and held eleven pre-April 2008 claims time-barred under the IDEA’s two-year limitations period.
- The district court affirmed, applying the two-year cutoff to bar all claims based on occurrences prior to Apr. 26, 2008; the Avilas appealed only the two substantive claims (failure to identify and assess for autism in 2006–2007).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper statute-of-limitations standard under IDEA §1415(f)(3)(C) | IDEA’s two-year limit should be triggered by discovery — when parents knew or should have known of the claim | District conceded discovery rule applies but argued parents here knew or should have known before Apr. 26, 2008 | Court held §1415(f)(3)(C) requires application of the discovery rule (run from when parent/agency knew or should have known) and rejected occurrence and 2+2 rules |
| Whether §1415(b)(6)(B) and §1415(f)(3)(C) create different limits (occurrence/2+2) | §1415(f)(3)(C) governs and the two provisions should be read together to implement discovery rule | District relied on district court’s application barring claims occurring before the two-year lookback date | Court harmonized the provisions: §1415(b) is a synopsis and §1415(f)(3)(C) provides the operative discovery-based timeline; rejected 2+2 and strict occurrence rules |
| Application of limitations to Avilas’ pre-April 2008 claims | Pre-April 2008 claims may be timely if parents did not know or have reason to know the basis for a claim until later | District argued prior knowledge (e.g., parents received and signed evaluation) made claims untimely | Court held the district court erred by barring claims solely by occurrence date and remanded to determine when Avilas knew or should have known |
| Availability of equitable exceptions (misrepresentation/withholding) | Not invoked on appeal | District noted two statutory exceptions but they were not argued by Avilas | Court noted two express exceptions exist but Avilas did not argue them; remand directed to apply discovery standard and exceptions if raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 2015) (interpreting IDEA amendments and applying discovery rule over occurrence and 2+2 approaches)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009) (remedial purpose of IDEA and importance of identifying eligible children)
- Somoza v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 538 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2008) (knew-or-should-have-known date tied to when parent knew of denial of FAPE, not merely of district action)
- Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008) (declining to hold parents to expertise standards; discovery date after reevaluation)
- O’Connor v. Boeing N. Am., Inc., 311 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2002) (statement of the discovery rule in civil contexts)