United States Ninth Circuit

In a dispute with a school district over a minor's entitlement to special education protection and services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), summary judgment for the school district is affirmed where: 1) although the school district violated the procedural requirements of the IDEA by not including a special education teacher or provider of the child on an IEP team, plaintiff did not qualify as a "child with a disability" because she did not meet any of the criteria for a "severe emotional disturbance"; and 2) consequently, the procedural error in the composition of her IEP team was harmless as she was substantively ineligible for IDEA relief.

Appellate Information

• Argued 05/18/2007
• Decided 07/16/2007
• Published 07/16/2007

Judges

• GONZALEZ, Chief District Judge:, Before:  CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief District Judge.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• George D. Crook and Henry Tovmassian, Newman Aaronson Vanaman, Sherman Oaks, CA, briefed the case, and Mr. Crook argued the case for the appellants., John E. Hayashida, Parker & Covert, Tustin, CA, was on the brief for amicus curiae California School Boards Association Education Legal Alliance.


• For Appellees:
  
• Sally Jensen Dutcher, General Counsel, and Scott N. Kivel, Law Offices of Scott N. Kivel, Petaluma, CA, argued and briefed the case for appellees.