L.M. Ex Rel. Sam M. v. Capistrano Unified School District

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
L.M. a minor, by and through his Guardian No. 10-55559 and 10-56243
ad litem, SAM M. and MARIETTE M.;
SAM M. on his own behalf; and D.C. No. 2:06-cv-3049 ABC (JCx)
MARIETTE M. on her own behalf,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM *
Cross-Appellees,
v.
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee,
Cross-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 7, 2011
Pasadena, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and GILLMOR, District
Judge.**
L. M. was a severely autistic two-year-old child residing in the Capistrano
Unified School District (“School District”). L. M.’s parents (“Parents”) sought a
free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) pursuant to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The School District offered L. M. several
Individual Education Plans (“IEPs”) in early 2005. The Parents rejected the
proposed IEPs and challenged their validity before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) pursuant to the IDEA. At the administrative proceeding, the Parents
prevailed on some claims and failed on others. The Parents appealed the ALJ’s
decision to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
The district court reviewed the ALJ’s decision and reversed on procedural grounds,
but did not reach the substantive merits of the proposed IEPs. On appeal, a panel
before this Court reversed the district court’s decision and held that there had been
no procedural violations. L. M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900,
910-11 (9th Cir. 2009). The case was remanded to the district court to determine
whether the proposed IEP was valid on substantive grounds. On remand, the
district court affirmed the ALJ’s decision and held that L. M.’s proposed IEP was
** The Honorable Helen W. Gillmor, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
2
reasonably calculated to provide L. M. with a FAPE. The district court also held
that the Parents were the prevailing parties at the administrative hearing and
awarded the Parents attorneys’ fees. The Parents appeal the district court’s
decision affirming the ALJ’s determination. The School District cross-appeals the
district court’s award of attorneys’ fees.
I. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DETERMINED THAT THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFERED L. M. AN IEP THAT WAS
REASONABLY CALCULATED TO PROVIDE L. M. WITH A FAPE
We review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error and a district
court’s conclusions of law de novo. JG v. Douglas Cnty Sch. Dist., 552 F.3d 786,
793 (9th Cir. 2008). We review whether a school district’s proposed IEP provides
for a FAPE de novo. Amanda J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 887 (9th
Cir. 2001); Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 1999).
The Parents argue that the district court and ALJ erred (A) by not applying
the standards set forth in the 2004 amendments to the IDEA, and (B) by
improperly concluding that L. M.’s proposed IEP was reasonably calculated to
provide L. M. with a FAPE. We affirm on both issues.
3
(A) The District Court Correctly Applied the IDEA as it Existed When the
IEPs Were Offered
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
(“IDEIA Amendments”), Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004), amended the
IDEA effective on July 1, 2005. In IDEA cases we apply the statute and
regulations in effect at the time the IEP was offered. R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified
Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932, 938 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Adams, 195 F.3d at 1148
n.2). All of the IEPs in this case were offered to the Parents before July 1, 2005.
The district court and ALJ correctly applied the IDEA as it existed before the
IDEIA Amendments took effect on July 1, 2005.
(B) The April IEP Was Reasonably Calculated to Provide L. M. with a
FAPE
The district court and ALJ correctly determined that the IEP proposed to L.
M. in April, 2005 (“April IEP”) was reasonably calculated to provide L. M. with a
FAPE. The district court, “in recognition of the expertise of the administrative
agency, must consider the findings carefully and endeavor to respond to the
hearing officer’s resolution of each material issue.” Gregory K. v. Longview Sch.
Dist., 811 F.2d 1307, 1311 (9th Cir. 1987). The district court, affording the ALJ’s
decision substantial weight, evaluated the ALJ’s finding and concluded that a
preponderance of the evidence supported it. We agree. A preponderance of the
4
evidence supported the district court and ALJ’s determination. The April IEP
provided for an education plan uniquely tailored to address L. M.’s needs and was
reasonably calculated to provide L. M. with a FAPE.
II. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN
GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO THE PARENTS
The IDEA permits an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party “in the
discretion of the court.” Z.A. v. San Bruno Park Sch. Dist., 165 F.3d 1273, 1275
(9th Cir. 1999). We review an award of attorneys’ fees under the IDEA for an
abuse of discretion. Oscar v. Alaska Dept. of Educ. & Early Dev., 541 F.3d 978,
980-81 (9th Cir. 2008). A district court abuses its discretion when “it bases its
decision on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
facts.” United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 1997).
Here, the district court correctly identified the relevant law and facts and
reasonably concluded that the Parents were the prevailing party at the
administrative hearing. In addition, the district court considered the Parents’
limited degree of success at the administrative proceeding and found “that the work
done at the administrative level for both successful and unsuccessful claims shared
a common core of facts and related legal theories and no reduction is warranted to
reflect [the Parents’] less than complete success in the administrative proceedings.”
5
(Supplemental Excepts of Record at 40.) We agree. Although the Parents were
not successful at gaining reimbursement for the entire time period at issue, the
Parents were successful at establishing that the School District’s initial IEP offer
was invalid. A “common core of facts” and “legal theories” underlies both
pursuits. Thomas v. City of Tacoma, 410 F.3d 644, 649 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting
Webb v. Sloan, 330 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003) ). The district court did not
abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
6