M. S. v. Lausd

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 24, 2019
Docket16-56472
StatusPublished

This text of M. S. v. Lausd (M. S. v. Lausd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
M. S. v. Lausd, (9th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

M. S., a minor, by and through her No. 16-56472 guardian ad litem R.H., Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-05819- v. CAS-MRW

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a Public Entity, ORDER Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 4, 2018 Pasadena, California

Filed January 24, 2019

Before: Dorothy W. Nelson and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges, and Robert W. Pratt,* District Judge.

* The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation. 2 M.S. V. LAUSD

SUMMARY **

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

The panel filed an order affirming the district court’s memorandum and order, which reversed an administrative law judge’s decision in an action brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, asserting that a student was denied a free and appropriate public education.

The panel agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the student was denied a free and appropriate public education because the Los Angeles Unified School District was required to consider whether a residential placement should be offered to her for educational purposes as part of her individualized education plan notwithstanding that another county agency, the Department of Children and Family Services, had residentially placed her for mental health treatment under state law, and pursuant to a juvenile court order. The panel agreed that the LAUSD had an independent obligation to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements was available to meet the student’s educational needs and to consider whether a residential placement was necessary for educational purposes and not merely necessary quite apart from the learning process. The panel affirmed for the reasons stated in the district court’s memorandum and decision, which the panel attached as an appendix to its order.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. M.S. V. LAUSD 3

COUNSEL

Barrett K. Green (argued) and Cristen R. Hintze, Littler Mendelson P.C., Los Angeles, California; Mary Kellogg, Assistant General Counsel II; Devora Navera Reed, Chief Administrative Law & Litigation Counsel; David Holmquist, General Counsel; Office of General Counsel, Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant.

Allison Barret Holcombe (argued), Los Angeles, California; Shawna L. Parks, Law Office of Shawna L. Parks, Los Angeles, California; Janeen Steel, Learning Rights Law Center, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Summer D. Dalessandro and Howard J. Fulfrost, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, Carlsbad, California; D. Michael Ambrose and Elaine M. Yama-Garcia, California School Boards Association/Education Legal Alliance, West Sacramento, California; for Amicus Curiae California School Boards Association’s Educational Legal Alliance.

Selene Almazan-Altobelli, Ellen Saideman, and Alexis Casillas, Catherine Merino Reisman Counsel of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc., Towson, Maryland, for Amici Curiae Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates Inc. and California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy.

Suge Lee, Carly J. Munson, and Ben Conway, Disability Rights California, Oakland, California, for Amicus Curiae Disability Rights California. 4 M.S. V. LAUSD

ORDER

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) appeals from the district court’s Memorandum and Order reversing the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) action asserting the denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482.

The district court correctly concluded that M.S. was denied a FAPE because LAUSD was required to consider whether a residential placement should be offered to M.S. for educational purposes as part of her individualized education plan (IEP) notwithstanding that another county agency, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), had residentially placed her for mental health treatment under state law, and pursuant to a Juvenile Court order. In a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded that the LAUSD “had an independent obligation to ‘ensure that a continuum of alternative placements [was] available to meet [M.S.’s educational] needs,’ 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a)—and to consider whether a residential placement was ‘[] necessary for educational purposes’ and not merely ‘necessary quite apart from the learning process.’” See Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Office of Admin. Hearings, 903 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1990).

We agree with the district court’s conclusion, and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Decision, reissued January 9, 2019, and attached hereto as Appendix A.

AFFIRMED. M.S. V. LAUSD 5

Appendix A Case 2:15-cv-05819-CAS-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 25 Page ID #:2366

81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857 &(175$/',675,&72)&$/,)251,$

&,9,/0,187(6*(1(5$/ &DVH1R FY&$605: 'DWH -DQXDU\ 7LWOH 06Y/26$1*(/(681,),('6&+22/',675,&7

3UHVHQW7KH+RQRUDEOH &+5,67,1$$61<'(5

'HSXW\&OHUN &RXUW5HSRUWHU5HFRUGHU 7DSH1R $WWRUQH\V3UHVHQWIRU3ODLQWLIIV $WWRUQH\V3UHVHQWIRU'HIHQGDQWV 1$ 1$ 3URFHHGLQJV &255(&7('0(025$1'80$1'25'(521$33($/ )520$'0,1,675$7,9(/$:-8'*(¶6'(&,6,21

2Q6HSWHPEHUWKH&RXUWLVVXHGDQRUGHULQWKHDERYHFDSWLRQHGFDVH UHYHUVLQJLQSDUWWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHODZMXGJH¶VGHFLVLRQ6HH&DVH1R&9 &$6'NW1R7KH&RXUWLVVXHVWKHIROORZLQJFRUUHFWHGRUGHU

, ,1752'8&7,21

7KLVFDVHDULVHVXQGHUWKH,QGLYLGXDOVZLWK'LVDELOLWLHV(GXFDWLRQ$FW WKH ³,'($´ 86&††HWVHT2Q-XO\SODLQWLII06DPLQRUE\DQG WKURXJKKHU*XDUGLDQ$G/LWHP5+ FROOHFWLYHO\³SODLQWLII´RU³06´ ILOHGVXLW DJDLQVWGHIHQGDQW/RV$QJHOHV8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW ³WKH'LVWULFW´RU³/$86'´  DOOHJLQJYLRODWLRQRIWKH,'($DQGVHHNLQJUHYHUVDORIWKH$GPLQLVWUDWLYH/DZ-XGJH¶V ³$/-´ 0D\GHFLVLRQDVWRWKUHHLVVXHV

3UHVHQWO\EHIRUHWKH&RXUWLV06¶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

DOOEXWRQHRIWKHVHWZHOYHLVVXHV+HUHDVGLVFXVVHGLQJUHDWHUGHWDLOinfra06RQO\ VHHNVUHYLHZDQGUHYHUVDORIWKUHHRIWKHHOHYHQLVVXHVRQZKLFKWKH$/-UXOHGLQIDYRURI WKH'LVWULFW &9  &,9,/0,187(6*(1(5$/ 3DJHRI Case 2:15-cv-05819-CAS-MRW Document 80 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:2367

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
M. S. v. Lausd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-s-v-lausd-ca9-2019.