Pinto v. District of Columbia
938 F. Supp. 2d 25
D.D.C.2013Background
- K.P.R., a student eligible for special education, and his parents challenge an IDEA decision regarding Lab School placement and tuition reimbursement.
- During 2010-2011, DCPS allegedly refused to include adequate special education supports and speech therapy in K.P.R.’s IEP.
- K.P.R.’s parents removed him from Horace Mann to Kingbury Day School, then to Lab School of Washington prior to the 2011-2012 year.
- A June-July 2012 due process hearing found DCPS failed to conduct appropriate evaluations and created an inappropriate IEP, but declined Lab School placement and tuition reimbursement.
- Special Master in a related Blackman case later found DCPS delayed evaluations and recommended partial tuition reimbursement; the court adopted that recommendation.
- Plaintiffs filed this action seeking (a) compliance with the Hearing Officer’s order and a new IEP, and (b) review of the denial of Lab School placement and tuition reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot | Not moot because Lab School placement and past tuition remain at issue. | Remedial actions mooted the claims once the evaluations and new IEP were produced. | Not moot; partial relief remains and future relief possible. |
| Whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies | Exhaustion satisfied despite yearly IEP revisions; claims were raised in the original hearing. | Exhaustion required renewed proceedings after each IEP revision and school year. | Exhaustion satisfied; no need to refile for each revision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pharmachemie B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 276 F.3d 627 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (mootness and real controversy requirements for relief)
- Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 701 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (mootness: real and substantial controversy required)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (DCPS funding when appropriate private placement is necessary)
- Lesesne v. Dist. of Columbia, 447 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (exhaustion allows partial relief without mooting entire claim)
- American Bar Ass’n v. FTC, 636 F.3d 641 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (public policy arguments and related considerations in administrative matters)