T.B. ex rel. Brenneise v. San Diego Unified School District
806 F.3d 451
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- T.B. is a 21-year-old with disabilities who relies on a g-tube; dispute centers on g-tube feeding in school and related IEPs for 2006–07 and 2007–08.
- ALJ ruled for the district on most issues but found deficiencies in the August and December 2006 IEPs regarding g-tube feeding and designated staff.
- Brenneises sued under IDEA, and for civil rights claims under the ADA and §504; district court granted partial summary judgment for the district.
- ALJ’s relief corrected IEPs to require nurse involvement for g-tube feedings; district’s 2007–08 plan remained at issue.
- The district court awarded limited attorneys’ fees to the Brenneises and remanded fee issues; on appeal, the Ninth Circuit addressed both civil rights and fee-related questions.
- The court ultimately affirms some summary judgments, reverses others, vacates/remands the fee award, and discusses the enforceability of state-mpecified accommodations under California law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| California statute as enforceable accommodation for g-tube feeding | Brenneises argue CA law defines the required accommodation and is enforceable. | District contends no per se CA accommodation; disputes deliberate indifference. | California-defined accommodation is enforceable; deliberate indifference required. |
| Deliberate indifference under §504/ADA for g-tube feeding | Failure to provide statutorily compliant staff could show deliberate indifference. | District acted with reasonable interpretations; no deliberate indifference. | No reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference for Count IV; summary judgment for district affirmed. |
| Count V—ILP 2007–08 IEP and rights violation | District knew CA rules; failure to ensure nurse presence could violate rights. | ALJ’s decision pertained to prior year; issues for 2007–08 are fact-bound and unresolved. | Genuine dispute of material fact; remand for further proceedings. |
| Retaliation claim (Count VII) under ADA | District retaliated against advocacy by Brenneises. | No evidence of causation; actions tied to programmatic decisions, not retaliation. | No reasonable jury could find retaliation; district court affirmed on this count. |
| Attorneýs’ fees under IDEA and settlement-offer rules | Should recover substantial fees for pre- May 2007 work; May 2007 offer should not bar.” | Fees barred post-offer if not substantially justified and relief not more favorable. | Remanded; district court’s fee ruling vacated; need detailed justification and reevaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (U.S. 1988) (Stay-put and FAPE standards under IDEA; due process implications)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (Deliberate indifference standard under civil rights; require intentional denial or substantial likelihood of harm)
- Vinson v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 288 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (Reasonableness of accommodations under IDEA depends on individual circumstances; state may define minimums)
- Anchorage School District v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2012) (Mixed questions of law and fact reviewed de novo; emphasis on standard of review)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (Rule 68-like incentive to settlement; governs fee-shifting context in IDEA)