Four Riverside County students’ class-action suit against California’s remote special education practices was dismissed a second time, on appeal.
The students, through their parents, argued that the school districts should have modified their individualized education programs (IEPs) when the schools transitioned to remote teaching due to the coronavirus pandemic. IEPs are special education plans schools must create and follow for special needs students. They claimed their schools violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the 14th Amendment.
“By transferring these students to distance learning without even learning what accommodations needed to be made for these students, they have been set up for failure and, thereby, denied a free appropriate public education, the cornerstone of the right to a basic minimum education,” their complaint says.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal agreed with the federal court that the Etiwanda and Chaffey Joint Union High school districts’ students did not try to work through the school’s administration to modify their education programs before they filed suit.
“A plaintiff seeking relief for the denial of a (free and appropriate public education) ordinarily must exhaust the administrative process before filing a lawsuit, even if the plaintiff asserts claims arising under the Constitution or a federal statute other than the (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act),” the court ruled.
The complaint also named approximately 1,000 other California school districts as defendants for not modifying their students’ IEPs. They also sued California’s Department of Education, alleging they encouraged, but didn’t require, schools to modify their special education IEPs. They requested an injunction requiring the Department of Education to return to in-person instruction or reassessment.
The Ninth Circuit found that the students did not have the grounds to sue the school districts they were not enrolled in, and that their requested injunction against the Department of Education was moot and irrelevant because schools have already returned to in-person learning.
Case information
Fazil Munir, Diana Renteria and Andrew Price of Newport Beach’s Law Offices of Fazil A. Munir, Esq. and Deborah Reisdorph of Huntington Beach’s Skanadore Reisdorph Law Office represented the plaintiffs in the California Central District Court.
Maxwell Pritt and Erica Nyborg-Burch of San Francisco’s Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Diana Renteria of Newport Beach’s Law Offices of Sheila C. Bayne represented the plaintiffs on appeal.
Twenty-one attorneys represented the 25 school districts, two specialty schools and the state defendants. Edward Kang and Thomas Madruga of Los Angeles’ Olivarez Madruga Law Organization represented the Etiwanda Elementary School District and the San Bernardino City Unified School District. Marlon Wadlington, Scott Danforth, and Kristin Meyers of Cerritos’ Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo represented the Riverside Unified and Chaffey Joint Union High school districts. Daniel Harbottle, Sydney Blaauw, and Tracy Johnson of Irvine’s Harbottle Law Group represented Corona-Norco Unified and Moreno Valley Unified school districts.
California Central District Judge Stephen Wilson presided.
Oral argument occurred Dec. 6.
Ninth Circuit Judges Milan Smith, Kenneth Lee and Danielle Forrest wrote the opinion.
California Central District case number 5:20-cv-01796.
Appellate case number 20-56404.
Read the complaint here.
Read the ruling here.
