J.H. v. Seattle Public Schools

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 J.H. and D.H., parents of P.H., a minor, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-191 MJP 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND ORDER AND 12 v. JUDGMENT 13 SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Amend Order and 17 Judgment. (Dkt. No. 25.) Having reviewed the Motion, Plaintiffs’ Response (Dkt. No. 29), the 18 Reply (Dkt. No. 30), and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 19 BACKGROUND 20 In ruling on the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court reversed the 21 administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) determination that Defendant Seattle Public Schools (“the 22 District”) denied P.H., Plaintiffs’ autistic child, with free and appropriate education (“FAPE”). 23 (Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 20).) The Court found that the 24 1 Parents were not entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of P.H. in private 2 school because the District had not violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 3 (“IDEA”). (Id. at 20.) The Court also stated that “[e]ven if the Court found a violation of the 4 IDEA, the Court does not find the equities favor an award of reimbursement for all private-

5 placement related fees.” (Id.) The Court explained that “[w]hile the Court does not fault Parents 6 for wanting the best for their child, it finds an absence of evidence in the record to support a 7 finding that Shrub Oak represents the proper placement for P.H. and that an award for all tuition 8 and related expenses claims would be appropriate even if there had been a FAPE denial.” (Id.) 9 The Court’s concluded that “the ALJ erred in awarding reimbursement to Parents.” (Id.) But the 10 Order did not specify that the Parents must repay the reimbursement to the District. The District 11 now moves for an order amending the Court’s Order and Judgment to expressly order Plaintiffs 12 to repay the reimbursement. The District indicates that the reimbursement it seeks totals 13 $445,132.56, and that it is not seeking an amendment to the Court’s Order regarding the amounts 14 it has paid for prospective placement (which exceeds $460,000). (Mot. to Amend at 4 (Dkt. No.

15 25).) 16 ANALYSIS 17 The District’s Motion asks the Court to amend its Order under Rule 52(b) or under Rule 18 59(e). Although the District identified other rules for the first time in its Reply, the Court focuses 19 its analysis under Rules 52(b) and 59(e). 20 Rule 52(b) allows a court to amend its “findings—or make additional findings—and may 21 amend the judgment accordingly.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). A motion under Rule 52(b) “may 22 accompany a motion for a new trial under Rule 59.” Id. Rule 59(e) allows a party to file a 23 “motion to alter or amend a judgment.” Amending a judgment after its entry is “an extraordinary

24 1 remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n.1 (9th 2 Cir. 1999) (en banc) (per curiam). In general, a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if: 3 (1) such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously 4 unavailable evidence; (3) such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law. 5 Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). A court considering a Rule 6 59(e) motion is not limited to these four grounds, and may amend under unusual circumstances 7 outside the listed grounds where appropriate. Id. A motion under Rule 59, like a motion under 8 Rule 52(b), is granted in order to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to address newly 9 discovered evidence. Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978). 10 The Court finds that it proper to amend its Order and Judgment to correct a manifest error 11 and omission in the Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. In its Order, the Court 12 found “an award of reimbursement [was] improper because the Court concludes that the ALJ 13 erred in finding the unilateral private placement was appropriate.” (Order at 20.) The Court 14 found the “award of reimbursement [was] inappropriate.” (Id.) The Court also found that “the 15 equities [did not] favor an award of reimbursement for all private-placement related fees.” (Id.) 16 The Court’s Order and Judgment did not, however, specifically order the repayment of the 17 reimbursement. This was an oversight. And without this specific relief, the Order and Judgment 18 could be read to provide only illusory relief to the District. To correct this manifest error, the 19 Court hereby ORDERS the repayment of the reimbursement and ORDERS the Clerk to enter an 20 amended judgment reflecting this requirement. 21 In reaching this determination, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that repayment of 22 the reimbursement would be inequitable. The Court already considered the equities and 23 determined that the ALJ’s award of reimbursement was inequitable. (Order on Cross-Motions at 24 1 20.) And Plaintiffs have not sought reconsideration of that part of the Order. The Court therefore 2 will not revisit this portion of its Order and it rejects Plaintiffs’ argument. 3 Additionally, the Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the District failed to properly 4 raise and request repayment of the reimbursement. In its Motion for Summary Judgment the

5 District argued that “the ALJ erroneously concluded that Parents were entitled to their requested 6 remedies of reimbursement for P.H.’s private placement,” and it asked the Court to “reverse the 7 ALJ’s award of relief.” (Dist. Opening Br. at 17.) This was consistent with the District’s Answer 8 and Counterclaim, which asked the Court to “reverse the erroneous findings and conclusions in 9 the ALJ Decision,” to “enter a declaratory judgment that the District did not violate the IDEA”,” 10 and to “award such other relief as it deems just and equitable.” (Answer, Prayer for Relief ¶¶ 2, 11 3, 5.) Moreover, in its Motion, the District argued that “[i]f the Court reverses this 12 determination—as it should—it must also conclude that Parents are not entitled to any of their 13 requested remedies related to their private placement of P.H.” (Id. at 44.) And the District argued 14 that the equities did not favor reimbursement even if the Court found that the District violated the

15 IDEA. (Id. at 45-47.) As such, the Court finds the request for repayment of reimbursement was 16 adequately requested, and that awarding such relief is consistent with the Counterclaim and the 17 District’s Motion. Additionally, Plaintiffs were provided with sufficient notice and an 18 opportunity to oppose this request in responding to the District’s Motion. 19 CONCLUSION 20 To prevent manifest error, the Court GRANTS the District’s Motion and AMENDS its 21 Order to specify that the Parents must repay the reimbursement award. The Court ORDERS the 22 Clerk to enter an amended judgment reflecting this conclusion. 23 \\

24 1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 2 Dated June 18, 2024. A 3 4 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23