BY AND THROUGH v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

M. S., a minor, BY AND THROUGH her guardian ad litem R.H., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Public Entity, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-56472

Decided: January 24, 2019

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Robert W. Pratt,* District Judge.

Barrett K. Green (argued) and Cristen R. Hintze, Littler Mendelson P.C., Los Angeles, California; Mary Kellogg, Assistant General Counsel II; Devora Navera Reed, Chief Administrative Law & Litigation Counsel; David Holmquist, General Counsel; Office of General Counsel, Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant. Allison Barret Holcombe (argued), Los Angeles, California; Shawna L. Parks, Law Office of Shawna L. Parks, Los Angeles, California; Janeen Steel, Learning Rights Law Center, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Summer D. Dalessandro and Howard J. Fulfrost, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, Carlsbad, California; D. Michael Ambrose and Elaine M. Yama-Garcia, California School Boards Association/Education Legal Alliance, West Sacramento, California; for Amicus Curiae California School Boards Association's Educational Legal Alliance. Selene Almazan-Altobelli, Ellen Saideman, and Alexis Casillas, Catherine Merino Reisman Counsel of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc., Towson, Maryland, for Amici Curiae Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc. and California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy. Suge Lee, Carly J. Munson, and Ben Conway, Disability Rights California, Oakland, California, for Amicus Curiae Disability Rights California.

ORDER

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) appeals from the district court's Memorandum and Order reversing the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action asserting the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482.

The district court correctly concluded that M.S. was denied a FAPE because LAUSD was required to consider whether a residential placement should be offered to M.S. for educational purposes as part of her individualized education plan (IEP) notwithstanding that another county agency, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), had residentially placed her for mental health treatment under state law, and pursuant to a Juvenile Court order. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded that the LAUSD “had an independent obligation to ‘ensure that a continuum of alternative placements [was] available to meet [M.S.’s educational] needs,’ 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a)—and to consider whether a residential placement was ‘[ ] necessary for educational purposes’ and not merely ‘necessary quite apart from the learning process.’ ” See Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Office of Admin. Hearings, 903 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1990).

We agree with the district court's conclusion, and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's Memorandum and Decision, reissued January 9, 2019, and attached hereto as Appendix A.

AFFIRMED.

Appendix A

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law