Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00380/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00380-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.S., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-0380 PVT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On December 5, 2006, the parties appeared for hearing on cross-motions for summary

judgment.1 Based on the briefs and arguments submitted,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s motion for summary

judgment is DENIED and the motion by Defendants J.S. and A.O. for summary judgment is

GRANTED for the reasons discussed herein.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

During the 2004-2005 school year, Student was a 14 year-old boy attending the seventh grade

at Lakeview Middle School, which is in Pajaro Valley Unified School District (“Plaintiff” or the

“District”). Defendant J.S. (“Student”) resided with his mother, A.O. (collectively with Student,

“Defendants”). On March 14, 2005, Student’s attorney wrote the District and requested that the

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 As used herein, the terms “assessment” and “evaluation” are used interchangeably.

ORDER, page 2

District assess Student’s eligibility for special education and related services. At that time, Student

was under suspension and had been recommended for expulsion. 

On March 21, 2005, the District acknowledged Student’s request, and notified Student’s

attorney that school psychologist Karrie West had made an appointment to meet with A.O. to explain

the proposed assessment plan and to obtain A.O.’s written permission to do the assessment.

After obtaining A.O.’s written permission, the District proceeded to conduct an assessment2

of Student, including: 1) interviewing A.O., Student’s teachers, and a school counselor; 2) reviewing

some of Student’s records; 3) conducting psychological testing, including cognitive, perceptual and

social/behavioral tests; 4) observing Student (although not in a classroom setting); 5) assessing

Student’s speech and language; 6) assessing Student’s health and developmental milestones; and 7)

assessing Student’s academic level. The team that conducted the assessment consisted of a school

psychologist, a special education teacher, a speech/language/hearing specialist, and a school nurse

(collectively the “Assessment Team”).

On May 16, 2005 the Assessment Team issued its Report of Assessment for Special

Education (the “Assessment”). (Reynolds Decl., Exh. G.) The Assessment starts with a section

entitled “Reason for Assessment” in which a box is checked for “Initial eligibility for special

education” and the following statement is made: “Lakeview Middle School had referred [Student]

for expulsion. During the expulsion proceedings Ms. [A.O.] referred [Student] for assessment due to

concerns of inattentive symptoms impacting his academic achievement.” 

The Assessment summarizes Student’s educational history and sets forth the results of the

various interviews, tests, assessments, and observations that had been conducted. The Assessment

was signed by each member of the Assessment Team. The signature page includes two sections

above the signatures. The first is entitled “Recommendations” and includes various

recommendations for accommodations Student could benefit from, such as being allowed to type his

essays and being allowed extended time on tests. The second section on that page, immediately

above the signatures, is entitled “Eligibility.” That section includes an affirmative statement that

Student “did not qualify for Special Educational Services under Other Health Impaired, Specific

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 3

Learning Disability, and Speech/Language Impairment. * * * No other disabling conditions were

suspected.” 

The afternoon of May 16, 2005–the same day that the Assessment was issued–the District

called A.O. in for a meeting. The District provided an interpreter to A.O. for the meeting because

she speaks only Spanish. However, the District gave A.O. only an English language version of the

Assessment. The parties dispute whether or not A.O. agreed to go forward without her attorney

present. (It is undisputed, however, that the District did not even attempt to contact Student’s

attorney about the meeting.) The parties also dispute what exactly occurred at the meeting. 

Defendants claim that the District merely presented the Assessment and the eligibility determination

to A.O. as a done deal. The District claims that it was a proper “IEP” meeting in which A.O. was

provided with a full opportunity to participate in the determination of whether Student is eligible for

special education and related services.

On June 1, 2005 Student’s attorney wrote to the District and requested an independent

educational assessment at public expense. The District responded by letter dated June 21, 2005, in

which it: 1) explained why it believed the Assessment was appropriate; 2) notified Defendants that it

was “prepared” to go to a due process hearing to defend the Assessment; and 3) instructed

Defendants to inform the District by June 30, 2005 if they wished to “continue” to pursue an

independent assessment, in which case the District would then file for due process.

On June 27, 2005 Student’s attorney again wrote to the district requesting an independent

educational assessment at public expense. 

On August 22, 2005, almost three months after Student first requested an independent

educational assessment at public expense, the District wrote to the California Office of

Administrative Hearings and requested a due process hearing. The due process hearing was held less

than a month later on September 15, 2005.

Based on the testimony and evidence introduced at the due process hearing, the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision on October 21, 2005 in which he found that the

District had not met its burden of showing that its Assessment of Student was conducted properly. 

Thus, the ALJ ruled that Student was entitled to an independent educational assessment at public

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 3 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 4

expense. The ALJ ordered the District to reimburse Student for the cost of the independent

educational assessment upon receipt of written proof (presumably of the cost). The ALJ further

ordered the District to comply with the requirements of California Education Code sections 56304

and 56329(a), and with Title 34 CFR section 300.534(a), including giving A.O. and Student’s

attorney notice and opportunity to participate in meetings concerning Student’s assessment,

educational placement, and eligibility for special education services. This appeal ensued.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A “parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the

parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency.” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1). 

When a parent requests an independent educational evaluation, a school district must “without

unnecessary delay” either comply or else file a due process complaint to request a hearing to show

that its own evaluation is appropriate. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2). 

Either party to a due process hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(“IDEA”) may appeal to the district court. These cases are normally decided on cross-motions for

summary judgment. The standard of review on a motion for summary judgment in an IDEA case is

unique. Courts base their decisions on a preponderance of the evidence (see 20 U.S.C.

§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii)), giving “due weight” to the hearing officer's findings. See Amanda J. ex rel.

Annette J. v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2001). The standard is more

stringent than the substantial evidence standard commonly applied in administrative appeals, but it

does not rise to the level of a de novo review. Ibid.

III. DISCUSSION

A. STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO AN INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AT

PUBLIC EXPENSE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT FAILED TO TIMELY FILE A DUE

PROCESS COMPLAINT 

After receiving the request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the

District waited three weeks and then imposed a demand that Student reiterate the request within 9

days or the District would interpret the silence as a withdrawal of the request. As Student and A.O.

point out, when Student’s attorney promptly reiterated the request for an independent educational

evaluation at public expense, the District waited another eight weeks before finally filing a due

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 4 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER, page 5

process complaint to request a hearing to show that its own evaluation was appropriate. The District

has not explained why it took it almost three months from the time Student first requested an

independent educational assessment at public expense for the District to file its due process

complaint, much less why that delay was somehow “necessary.” Thus, on the record before the court

it appears that the District failed to file its due process complaint “without unnecessary delay.” 

The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of IDEA's procedural safeguards:

“[T]he congressional emphasis upon full participation of concerned parties throughout the

development of the IEP, as well as the requirements that state and local plans be submitted to

the Secretary for approval, demonstrates the legislative conviction that adequate compliance

with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress

wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson

Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982).

The IDEA’s procedural safeguards are considered so important that violations of those safeguards

may warrant relief under the ACT. See also, Park, ex rel. Park v. Anaheim Union High School Dist.,

464 F .3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2006) (“relief is appropriate if procedural violations . . . seriously

infringe [a student’s] parents’ opportunity to participate in the formulation of the individualized

education plan”)

Under the facts of the present case, the court finds that the District’s unexplained and

unnecessary delay in filing for a due process hearing waived its right to contest Student’s request for

an independent educational evaluation at public expense, and by itself warrants entry of judgment in

favor of Student and A.O. in this action.

B. STUDENT IS ENTITLED TO AN INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AT

PUBLIC EXPENSE BECAUSE THE DISTRICT’S ASSESSMENT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE

Even if the court did not find the District had waived its right to contest Student’s request,

summary judgment in favor of Defendants and against the district is warranted because, based on a

preponderance of the evidence in the administrative record and before the court, and giving due

weight to the ALJ”s findings, the court finds that the District’s Assessment was not appropriate.

At the administrative hearing, Dr. Burdick testified that the Assessment was deficient

because, among other things, it failed to adequately test Student’s executive functioning, and failed

to adequately explore the possibility that Student has pervasive developmental delay and/or

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 5 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

“AR” refers to the Record of Administrative Hearing, volumes I and II, lodged herein on

July 5, 2006. The clerk of the court shall now file both volumes in the official court file.

4 The District argues that it is required to include a statement of eligibility in the

assessment, citing California Education Code section 56327(a). However, that statute requires only that

an assessment state whether the pupil “may need” special education, not whether the pupil is actually

eligible for special education under the IDEA.

ORDER, page 6

nonverbal learning disabilities. See AR3 Vol. II at 189-92. Dr. Burdick is one of the three sources

the District identified, in response to a request from Student’s counsel, as being appropriate

providers to conduct an independent assessment of Student. See AR Vol. I at 103. The court finds

his testimony credible.

The District’s witnesses, members of the Assessment Team, essentially testified that the

disabilities Dr. Burdick testified should have been further explored would have shown up during the

tests that they did administer. The court is not persuaded by the District’s witnesses. The

Assessment Team’s conduct is highly suggestive that they did not approach the testing with an open

mind. In writing the Assessment, instead of simply stating that Student’s mother had requested an

assessment, they included a gratuitous statement that the request was made “during expulsion

proceedings.” They concluded the Assessment with a finding of non-eligibility,4 before discussing

the test results with Student’s mother. And they called the mother in for a meeting on the very same

day they finished writing the Assessment, without notifying her attorney despite prior assurances

they would do so, and without providing the mother with a copy of the Assessment in her own

language. While the question of whether this conduct itself violated the IDEA is not before the court

in this action, it is nonetheless evidence tending to show that the Assessment Team prejudged

Student’s eligibility for special education, and that their prejudgment may have led them to give the

testing short shrift. While the court does not attribute to the Assessment Team any subjective bad

faith, under all of the circumstances the court simply finds the testimony of Dr. Burdick, an

independent expert the District itself had recommended, to be more credible and deserving of more

weight.

C. REMAND IS NOT APPROPRIATE

The District argues, without citation to any legal authority, that the court must remand the

matter back to the ALJ for a new hearing. Remand is often appropriate in the context of statutes that

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 6 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 While not before the court and thus not part of this order, the court anticipates that the

District will then comply with the provisions of the IDEA and related state laws when Student and his

mother submit Dr. Burdick’s report for consideration as part of a proper IEP meeting.

ORDER, page 7

require a court to give deference to an ALJ’s decision if it is supported by substantial evidence. See,

e.g., Bilby v. Schweiker, 762 F.2d 715, 719 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that, in the context of

Supplemental Security Income benefits, remand is appropriate “where additional proceedings could

remedy defects”). However, under the IDEA courts are directed to hear any new evidence offered by

the parties, and to base their decisions on the preponderance of the evidence. See 20 U.S.C.

§ 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii). Given that the courts are authorized to take new evidence and may base their

decisions on such new evidence, while a court must give an ALJ’s findings “due weight,” there is

clearly no requirement to remand if the ALJ fails to make necessary findings. While remand may be

appropriate in some situations under the IDEA, under the facts of this case and in light of the

additional delay remand would entail the court does not find remand appropriate.

IV. CONCLUSION

Student is entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense because: 1) the

District failed to, without unnecessary delay, file a due process complaint; and 2) the District’s

Assessment was not appropriate. The District shall reimburse Defendants for the cost of the

assessment already done by Dr. Burdick, and any further cost reasonably incurred for Dr. Burdick to

prepare a written report of his assessment if he has not already done so.5 

Dated: 12/15/06

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00380-PVT Document 57 Filed 12/15/06 Page 7 of 7