Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

L.B. v. West Contra Costa Unified School District

United States District Court, N.D. California

April 3, 2017

L.B., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
WEST CONTRA COSTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS RE: DKT. NO. 19

          DONNA M. RYU UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiffs L.B. and M.B. are the parents of S.B., a former student. They appeal the May 15, 2016 administrative decision of the California Office of Administrative Hearings pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Defendants West Contra Costa Unified School District and West Contra Costa Unified School District Special Education Local Plan Area move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. [Docket No. 19.] The court held a hearing on March 23, 2017. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs make the following allegations in their complaint, all of which are taken as true for purposes of this motion.[1] S.B. was born in 1994 and has multiple learning disabilities. By the time she graduated from high school in June 2015, she had been eligible for special education and related services since 2009, when she was in the eighth grade. At all relevant times, S.B.'s school district of residence was West Contra Costa Unified School District (the “District”). [Docket No.

         1 (Compl.) ¶¶ 12, 13.] S.B. is bilingual and speaks Spanish and English. Compl. Ex. 1 at 3.

         On July 25, 2013, S.B. filed a due process complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) alleging that the District had failed to provide her with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. Compl. ¶ 25. In August 2013, while the due process proceeding was pending, S.B. began attending Bayhill High School in Oakland, California. Id. at ¶¶ 27, 29. S.B. and her parents settled their due process complaint with the District on November 17, 2013. As part of the settlement, the District finalized S.B.'s placement at Bayhill High School with services including speech and language therapy and mental health counseling. The parties also agreed that the District would provide S.B. with “transportation to/from Bayhill in the form of reimbursement for one round-trip per day of attendance at the current IRS rate.” Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiffs allege that the agreement provided that “[m]ileage reimbursement shall be provided within 30 days of the District's receipt of properly completed mileage reimbursement form(s), ” and that “[m]ileage reimbursement must be submitted by [S.B.] on a monthly basis.” Id.

         Plaintiffs allege that after the settlement agreement was finalized, the District never provided S.B. or M.B. with mileage reimbursement forms to complete. Id. at ¶ 32. In April 2014, M.B. submitted mileage reimbursement to the District on forms created by her attorney for August 2013 through March 2014.[2] Id. at ¶ 38. She never received reimbursement for the mileage claimed on these forms. Id. at ¶ 39. In June 2015, M.B. submitted mileage reimbursement forms for August 27, 2013 through June 5, 2015. Plaintiffs allege the District never processed the forms. Id. at ¶ 42. S.B. graduated from Bayhill High School on June 7, 2015. Id. at ¶ 12.

         Plaintiffs further allege that at S.B.'s March 5, 2014 individualized education program (“IEP”) meeting, her attorney requested that the District provide independent educational evaluations (“IEEs”) in the areas of psychoeducation, speech and language, and occupational therapy. Id. at ¶ 36. Plaintiffs allege that although the District advised that it would respond to the request “at a later time, ” they never received a letter from the District regarding their request for the three IEEs. Id. at ¶¶ 36, 40. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that at the March 5, 2014 IEP meeting, S.B.'s attorney requested District-provided transportation for S.B. because it was burdensome for M.B. to make two round trips per day to transport S.B. to and from school. According to Plaintiffs, the District responded that “it would only provide reimbursement pursuant to the settlement agreement.” Id. at ¶ 37.

         S.B. filed a due process complaint against the District on August 26, 2015, alleging that the District had failed to provide her with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years by failing to reimburse S.B. and/or her parents for round trip mileage to and from Bayhill High School. Id. at ¶ 43. At a September 8, 2015 resolution session, the District informed S.B.'s attorney that it could not accept the mileage reimbursement request previously submitted by M.B. because the request was not submitted on District forms. S.B.'s attorney and her sister then completed the District's mileage reimbursement forms for the period August 27, 2013 to June 5, 2015. Id. at ¶ 44. M.B. signed the forms on October 9, 2015 and was told she would receive the check within 30 days. Id. at ¶ 45.

         S.B. amended her due process complaint in October 2015, alleging that the District had failed to reimburse S.B. and/or her parents for round trip mileage to and from Bayhill High School through May 5, 2014, failed to provide transportation to and from school for S.B. after Plaintiffs' May 5, 2014 request[3], and failed to provide the three IEEs following Plaintiffs' counsel's March 5, 2014 request. Id. at ¶ 47. The matter was scheduled for trial on March 22-24, 2016. Id. at ¶ 55. At a March 11, 2016 prehearing conference, counsel for the District informed Plaintiffs' counsel for the first time that the District had notified M.B. that it had granted the request for the IEEs in a letter dated March 27, 2014. Counsel further stated that the District had already mailed M.B. and L.B. a check for the mileage reimbursement. Id. at ¶ 52. Plaintiffs never received a check in the mail. Id. at ¶ 53. On March 23, 2016, the second day of trial, the District provided M.B. with a check for mileage reimbursement from August 27, 2013 to June 5, 2016. Id. at ¶ 60.

         The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision on May 5, 2016. Compl. Ex. 1 (OAH Decision). In relevant part, the ALJ found that 1) OAH lacked jurisdiction over the issue of whether the District denied S.B. a FAPE by failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for mileage for one round trip per day from August 28, 2013 through March 5, 2014, since the reimbursement was required by a settlement agreement and OAH lacks jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements; 2) even if OAH had jurisdiction over the August 2013-March 2014 mileage reimbursement dispute, the issue was moot because S.B. received full reimbursement on March 23, 2016; and 3) S.B. did not establish that she was denied a FAPE based on the District's failure to provide IEEs, since S.B. had failed to pursue the IEEs after the District granted her request. Id.

         Plaintiffs filed this action on August 3, 2016, alleging three claims challenging the ALJ's decision with respect to the three findings set forth above. Defendants now move pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss Plaintiffs' first and second claims as moot, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiffs' third claim as barred by laches.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.