Message
×
loading..

A. L. v. Clovis Unified School District ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 18 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    A. L., by and through her guardian, I. Lee,     No.    18-16669
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
    1:17-cv-00358-AWI-SKO
    v.
    CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;                 MEMORANDUM*
    et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 11, 2020
    San Francisco, California
    Before: RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,**
    District Judge.
    Appellant A.L. and her guardian appeal the district court’s dismissal of
    claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation
    Act for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Individuals
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the
    District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18
    U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo both a district court’s application of IDEA’s
    exhaustion requirement and its grant of a motion to dismiss for the failure to state a
    claim. Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 
    967 F.2d 1298
    , 1303 (9th Cir. 1992); In
    re Nat’l Football League’s Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig., 
    933 F.3d 1136
    , 1149
    (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.
    When the gravamen of a complaint is a request for relief for the denial of a
    free and appropriate education (“FAPE”), a substantive right created by IDEA,
    plaintiffs must exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before suing in federal court.
    Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 
    137 S. Ct. 743
    , 754 (2017). Counts I and II (the
    federal-law claims) of Appellants’ Second Amended Complaint request injunctive
    relief requiring the school district to limit A.L.’s segregation from the school’s
    general population and to change its policy of prohibiting aides from
    communicating with parents. As the district court noted, integration into general
    population classes and communication between a school and parents are topics
    typically discussed when crafting a FAPE. Application of Fry’s clues indicate that
    Appellants’ claims could only be brought in the context of a school setting. The
    district court correctly concluded that the gravamen of Counts I and II is a request
    for relief for the denial of a FAPE. See 
    Fry, 137 S. Ct. at 756
    , 758.
    Appellants did not exhaust IDEA remedies because they settled their IDEA
    2                                     18-16669
    claims without receiving an administrative decision on the merits. See Paul G. by
    and through Steve G. v. Monterey Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist., 
    933 F.3d 1096
    ,
    1098 (9th Cir. 2019). Because Appellants’ decision to settle in lieu of pursuing
    IDEA administrative remedies was “clear from the face of the complaint,”
    dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper. See Albino v. Baca, 
    747 F.3d 1162
    ,
    1169 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (“[I]n those rare cases where a failure to exhaust is
    clear from the face of the complaint, a defendant may successfully move to dismiss
    under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                  18-16669
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-16669

Filed Date: 3/18/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/18/2020