Z.R. Ex Rel Ross v. Oak Park Unified School District ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOV 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Z. R., by and through his Guardian Ad No. 13-56660
Litem Dolores Ross; et al.,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05899-GAF-
Plaintiffs - Appellants, JCG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OAK PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 23, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, IKUTA, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Z.R. appeals the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Oak
Park Unified School District. The district court upheld the decision of the Office
of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that the District’s individualized education
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
program (IEP) offered Z.R. a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the
least restrictive environment under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education
Act (IDEA). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the question whether an IEP provided a FAPE. Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J.
v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the OAH’s
decision was “thorough and careful,” we give it substantial deference. Capistrano
Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884, 891 (9th Cir. 1995).
The district court did not err in holding that the District satisfied the
procedural requirements of the IDEA by ensuring that Z.R.’s IEP team included all
required members. 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a). Jerry Block was a regular education
teacher “who is, or may be, responsible for implementing a portion of the IEP.”
Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 64 Fed. Reg.
12,406, 12,477 (Mar. 12, 1999). Therefore, his presence satisfied the requirement
that the IEP team must include “not less than 1 regular education teacher of such
child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B); see R.B., ex rel F.B. v. Napa Valley Unified
Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932, 938–39 (9th Cir. 2007). Even if the district court did err,
any error was harmless because it did not deprive Z.R. of an educational
opportunity or infringe his parents’ participatory rights. See L.M. v. Capistrano
Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900, 909–10 (9th Cir. 2008).
2
The district court did not err in holding that the contents of goals one, two,
and four in the IEP adequately addressed Z.R.’s demonstrated need for improved
reciprocal communication. See G.D. ex rel. Dien Do v. Torrance Unified Sch.
Dist., 857 F. Supp. 2d 953, 968 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Nor did the district court err in
holding that the support services listed in the IEP, including individual counseling
and a social skills group, were sufficient to constitute a FAPE. Because Oak Park
High School (OPHS) administrators credibly testified that OPHS had the resources
necessary to create and run the program, Z.R.’s argument that the District would
have failed to implement the program is both premature and unsupported by the
record. See JG v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786, 802 (9th Cir. 2008);
Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999).
Finally, the district court did not err in holding that placement at OPHS in a
general education setting was appropriate. OAH and the district court reasonably
concluded that OPHS had sufficient support services to allow Z.R. to be placed in a
general education setting, thus satisfying the IDEA’s statutory preference for
mainstreaming. See Poolaw v. Bishop, 67 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
3