M.S. Ex Rel. Sartin v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 23 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
M.S., a minor, by and through her No. 15-56283
Guardian Ad Litem Peggy Sartin,
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellee, 5:13-cv-01484-CAS-SP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a Local Education Agency,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 6, 2017
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, IKUTA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Lake Elsinore Unified School District (Lake Elsinore) appeals the district
court’s order granting reimbursement to M.S. under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1419. The district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
court had jurisdiction under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Lake Elsinore had no duty under 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2) to conduct a
reevaluation of M.S. because the local educational agency did not determine that
reevaluation was necessary, M.S.’s parents did not request a reevaluation (as M.S.
concedes), M.S.’s teacher did not request a reevaluation, and fewer than three years
had elapsed since Dr. Patterson’s evaluation. Accordingly, the district court erred
in holding that Lake Elsinore had a duty to reevaluate M.S. and procedurally
violated the IDEA by failing to do so.
The district court erred in holding sua sponte that Lake Elsinore violated the
IDEA by holding an individualized education program meeting without M.S.’s
parents, because M.S. failed to exhaust this claim at the administrative level.
Payne v. Peninsula Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863, 871 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc); J.W. ex
rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 451 (9th Cir. 2010), aff’g
and adopting by reference, 611 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
Because M.S. failed to establish that Lake Elsinore violated the IDEA,
M.S.’s parents are not entitled to reimbursement. See Florence Cty. Sch. Dist.
Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993).
2
REVERSED.
3