Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-14-56464/USCOURTS-ca9-14-56464-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS BAQUERIZO, JR.;

ALEXIS BAQUERIZO,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Local

Educational Agency,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 14-56464

D.C. No.

8:12-cv-01825-JVS-CW

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 15, 2016

Santa Ana, California

Filed June 22, 2016

Before: RAYMOND C. FISHER, MILAN D. SMITH, JR.,

and JOHN B. OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 1 of 21
2 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

SUMMARY*

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor

of the defendant school district in an action filed by a student

and his guardian under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act.

The panel held that the school district did not violate the

procedural requirements of the IDEA in two Individualized

Education Programs, or IEPs. As to the first IEP, the panel

agreed with the district court that any procedural failure on

the part of the school district was caused by the student’s

guardian, and that, in any event, the student’s placement was

a free appropriate public education, or FAPE. As to the

second IEP, the school district did not commit a procedural

violation by failing to assess the student for anxiety or by

failing to determine baselines for speech and language goals. 

In addition, the student’s placement was a FAPE in the least

restrictive environment. Accordingly, the guardian was

properly denied reimbursement for private school placement. 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 2 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 3

COUNSEL

Tania L. Whiteleather, Law Offices of Tania L. Whiteleather,

Lakewood, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

S. Daniel Harbottle, Harbottle Law Group, Irvine, California,

for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

M. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Carlos Baquerizo (Carlos or Student) and his guardian,

Alexis Baquerizo (Guardian), seek reimbursement from

Garden Grove Unified School District (Garden Grove or

district) for the cost of Carlos’s private education during the

2009–2010 and 2011–2012 school years. They claim that

Garden Grove failed to comply with the procedural

requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1491o (IDEA), and therefore failed

to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the

least restrictive environment (LRE) for Carlos. The

administrative law judge (ALJ) denied reimbursement, and

the district court affirmed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Carlos Baquerizo has autism. During the 2006–2007

school year, Carlos attended a general education program at

a public school within the Garden Grove school district.

Carlos’s instruction was supplemented by instruction at the

Pliha Reading and Language Center (PRLC). In the summer

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 3 of 21
4 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

of 2007, Guardian withdrew Carlos from public school and he

began full-time instruction at PRLC. He continued there until

PRLC closed in July 2009. At that time, Carlos enrolled in

the Pliha Speech and Learning Center (PLSC)1, where he

remained until he graduated from high school in 2014.

Carlos, his Guardian, and Garden Grove have litigated the

issue of whether Garden Grove is required to reimburse

Guardian for Carlos’s private instruction with regard to every

school year since 2007.

Under the IDEA, a school district must work with a

disabled student’s guardian at the end of each school year to

prepare an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the

upcoming school year. At an IEP meeting, the school district

uses assessments of the student’s performance and

educational needs in order to offer an individualized

educational placement. The two IEPs at issue in this case are

the June 2009 IEP, created for the 2009–2010 school year,

and the June 2011 IEP, created for the 2011–2012 school

year. Because an understanding of the IDEA litigation

involving Carlos’s other school years is helpful to

understanding the case before us, we will outline the IEPs

since Carlos left public school.

I. The 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 School Years

During the 2006–2007 school year, Carlos attended both

public school and PRLC. During the summer of 2007, he

began attending PRLC exclusively, and continued to do so

throughout the 2007–2008 school year. Guardian filed a

request for a due process hearing before the California Office

of Administrative Hearings, seeking full reimbursement for

 

1

 Barbara Pliha operated both PRLC and PLSC.

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 4 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 5

Carlos’s tuition at PRLC, as well as transportation costs. C.B.

ex rel. Baquerizo v. Garden Grove Unified Sch. Dist.,

635 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2011). As to these school years, it

was undisputed that the education offered by Garden Grove

was not a FAPE for Carlos. The only decision remaining was

whether and to what extent Guardian should be reimbursed

for her expenses. Id. at 1159. The ALJ awarded only partial

reimbursement for the 2007–2008 school year because PRLC

did not meet all of Carlos’s educational needs. That decision

was reversed by the district court. The district court ruled that

PRLC provided “proper” alternative services under the IDEA

and that full reimbursement was appropriate, despite the fact

that it did not meet all of Carlos’s needs. We affirmed. Id. at

1160.

II. The 2008–2009 School Year

No IEP meeting was held for the 2008–2009 school year.

Guardian filed a due process hearing request, contending that

in failing to hold an IEP meeting, Garden Grove had denied

Carlos a FAPE and that she was entitled to reimbursement for

his educational expenses. OAH Case No. 2010041542. The

ALJ ruled that the failure was caused exclusively by the

obstructions created by Guardian and PRLC (Garrett

Decision). During the period “between May 16, 2008 to June

17, 2009,” ALJ Garrett found that Garden Grove “made great

efforts to conduct assessments, convene an IEP meeting, and

make an offer of placement and services.” Guardian “proved

to be uncooperative, and was chiefly responsible for the yearlong delay.” Garden Grove “frequently scheduled and

rescheduled assessment sessions and IEP meetings, in an

effort to accommodate Guardian.” Garden Grove “also

drafted and forwarded to [P]RLC multiple authorizations to

observe student, amid [P]RLC’s belated claims that previous

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 5 of 21
6 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

authorizations had expired.” Guardian unreasonablywithheld

the information that Carlos had been attending a social skills

group for most of the year, which Garden Grove employees

“would have observed . . . had they known that Student was

receiving such services.”

The Garrett Decision was affirmed by the district court on

February 6, 2012 (First Selna Decision). Guardian did not

appeal the First Selna Decision, and it therefore became final

in March 2012.

III. The May 2009 Settlement

A settlement was executed on May 7, 2009 to “settle fully

and finally resolve all differences, disputes, and controversies

existing between the Parties related to the consolidated OAH

Cases 2009020458 and 2009040166.” OAH Case No.

2009020458 was a due process hearing request from Garden

Grove filed on February 12, 2009, alleging that it had “made

numerous attempts to request dates and times convenient for

the Guardian to complete the assessments” pursuant to an

assessment plan created in November 2007. Garden Grove

alleged that Guardian had consistently failed to make Carlos

available, and had otherwise hindered the ability of Garden

Grove’s assessors to complete the required assessments. OAH

Case No. 2009040166 was a due process hearing request

from Guardian, alleging that the failure to hold the

assessments was because she had issues with transporting

Carlos to the testing sites due to her job constraints, and that

Garden Grove had unreasonably failed to provide

transportation or arrange alternative testing sites. The May

2009 Settlement resolved these assessment disputes,

providing that

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 6 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 7

Guardian agrees to make Student available for

the completion of assessments. The Parties

have agreed that the following assessments

will be completed as follows:

a. May 12, 2009: 8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

Audiological screening at District Office.

b. May 14, 2009: 8:30 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

Speech & Language assessment at Cook

Elementary.

The Settlement Agreement purports to “resolve[] any and all

issues between the Parties raised in the consolidated OAH

Cases . . . up to and including the date of execution of this

Agreement.”

IV. The 2009–2010 School Year

On June 18, 2009, six weeks after the execution of the

May 2009 Settlement Agreement and a single day after the

time period at issue in the Garrett Decision, Garden Grove

held an IEP meeting attended by Guardian and her legal

counsel. In that IEP, Garden Grove offered Carlos a

placement at Jordan Intermediate School, in a special day

class for students with mild to moderate disabilities. The

placement included two hours of small group and individual

speech and language therapy instruction per week; forty-five

minutes of occupational therapy per week; ongoing

monitoring of his progress in general education; and eight

hours of small-group intensive behavioral instruction per

week. Guardian rejected this offer and re-enrolled Carlos in

PRLC. In the comments of the June 2009 IEP, Guardian

requested a “complete IEE in psychoed, Speech and

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 7 of 21
8 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

Language, [intensive behavioral instruction], and [central

auditory processing disorder].” Garden Grove did not provide

the IEEs; it only provided the assessments agreed to in the

May 2009 Settlement Agreement.

Guardian waited almost two years to challenge the June

2009 IEP and request reimbursement. On June 15, 2011, she

filed a request for a due process hearing. OAH Case No.

2011060840. During the intervening two years, the parties

held an IEP for the 2010–2011 school year and initiated

administrative proceedings over that IEP. Because of the

delay, the dispute over the 2009–2010 school year was

consolidated with the litigation over the 2011–2012 school

year. See infra Part VI.

V. The 2010–2011 School Year

In the June 2010 IEP, Garden Grove offered Carlos a

placement at Buena Park Speech Language Development

Center (Buena Park). Like the June 2009 IEP offer at Jordan

Intermediate School, Carlos would not have been placed in a

general education class with typical peers at Buena Park.

Instead, the IEP would have placed him in a small group with

other students with mild to moderate special education needs.

In December 2010, Garden Grove filed a request for a due

process hearing to establish the appropriateness of this

placement. In October 2011, ALJ Myers-Cregar issued a

decision finding that the Buena Park placement was a FAPE

in the LRE for Carlos (Myers-Cregar Decision). OAH Case

No. 2010120784. Specifically, the Myers-Cregar Decision

found that a small-group setting was more appropriate for

Carlos than a general-education setting because he was

currently being instructed in a one-on-one setting at PRLC

and it was important to “minimize any harmful effect of

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 8 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 9

transitioning away from individual instruction.” Guardian

appealed the Myers-Cregar Decision to the district court,

which affirmed (Second Selna Decision). The Second Selna

Decision ruled that a general education placement “would be

highly problematic for Student’s transition, particularlygiven

that he has been in individualized placement for the last three

years.” We affirmed. C.B. ex rel. Baquerizo v. Garden Grove

Unified Sch. Dist., 575 F. App’x 796 (9th Cir. 2014).

VI. The 2011–2012 School Year

In the June 2011 IEP, Garden Grove again offered Carlos

a placement at Buena Park. Guardian again refused to consent

to the IEP. In October 2011, Garden Grove filed a due

process hearing request seeking a declaration that the June

2011 IEP was appropriate. OAH Case No. 2011100955.

Because Guardian had recently (on June 15, 2011) filed a

request for a due process hearing and reimbursement for the

2009–2010 school year (OAH Case No. 2011060840), ALJ

Ruff consolidated the two proceedings and reviewed both the

June 2009 IEP and the June 2011 IEP. The issues before ALJ

Ruff were substantially similar to the ones before us today:

Whether the school district committed procedural violations

of the IDEA by failing to conduct appropriate assessments of

Carlos’s needs, whether it offered a FAPE in the IEPs, and if

not, whether Guardian should be reimbursed for Carlos’s

private educational expenses. TheALJ denied reimbursement

in a ruling issued in July 2012. She ruled that many of the

issues about whether Garden Grove properly assessed Carlos

had been “already resolved in prior litigation between the

parties” in the Garrett Decision, which had been issued a few

months earlier in March 2012. She concluded that to the

extent the issues were not precluded, Guardian failed to show

a denial of a FAPE in either the June 2009 IEP or June 2011

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 9 of 21
10 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

IEP. The district court affirmed, after which Guardian filed

this timely appeal.

ANALYSIS

In reviewing the district court’s judgment in favor of

Garden Grove, we review conclusions of law de novo and

findings of fact for clear error. Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v.

Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 887 (9th Cir. 2001).

Whether a proposed IEP constitutes a FAPE is a question of

law we review de novo. Id. “We, like the district court,

however, ‘must give “due weight” to judgments of education

policy when [we] review state hearings. . . . [C]ourts should

not substitute their own notions of sound education policy for

those of the school authorities which they review.’” Union

Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1994)

(alterations in original) (quoting Gregory K. v. Longview Sch.

Dist., 811 F.2d 1307, 1311 (9th Cir. 1987)). “We give

deference to the administrative findings of the [ALJ]

particularly when . . . they are thorough and careful.” Id.

The IDEA was passed “to ensure that all children with

disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public

education . . . designed to meet their unique needs.” 20 U.S.C.

§ 1400(d)(1)(A). A FAPE is defined as an education that is

provided at public expense, meets the standards of the state

educational agency, and is in conformity with the student’s

IEP. Id. § 1401(9). In creating an IEP, a school district is

procedurally required to conduct individual evaluations (and

reevaluations) of the student, using “a variety of assessment

tools and strategies” to gather information to determine the

content of the IEP. Id. § 1414(b)(1)–(2).

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 10 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 11

In reviewing compliance with the IDEA, we first consider

whether the district complied with the procedures set forth in

the IDEA, and then consider whether the IEP was reasonably

calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.

Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley,

458 U.S. 176, 206–07 (1982). “Not every procedural

violation . . . is sufficient to support a finding that the child in

question was denied a FAPE.” Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 892.

A student is denied a FAPE if a procedural violation

“result[s] in the loss of educational opportunity . . . or

seriously infringe[s] the parents’ opportunity to participate in

the IEP formulation process.” Id. (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).

I. June 2009 IEP

Guardian argues that Garden Grove violated the

procedural requirements of the IDEA in the June 2009 IEP.

Specifically, she claims that 1) Garden Grove violated the

IDEA by failing to assess Carlos before the meeting;

2) Garden Grove impermissibly failed to conduct the

requested IEEs; and 3) Guardian was prevented from

participating in the IEP meeting. She implies that these

procedural failures led to a placement offer from Garden

Grove that did not qualify as a FAPE, and that she was

therefore justified in placing Carlos in private instruction and

is entitled to reimbursement.

We find these arguments to be unpersuasive. We agree

with the district court and ALJ Ruff that any procedural

failure on the part of Garden Grove was caused by Guardian,

and that, in any event, the Jordan Intermediate School

placement was a FAPE.

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 11 of 21
12 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

A. Assessments

By its own admission, Garden Grove did not have

updated performance levels for Carlos at the June 2009 IEP

meeting, which made it difficult for the IEP to set accurate

goals. However, as the district court correctly noted, “[t]here

is no evidence in the record to suggest that [Garden Grove]

lacked present levels for Student for any reason other than the

Guardian and [P]RLC’s delays.” That issue was fully and

finally litigated in the Garrett Decision.

The Garrett Decision addressed the 13 months

immediately prior to the June 2009 IEP, and ruled that up

until June 17, 2009, Guardian had thwarted Garden Grove’s

“great efforts to conduct assessments” by being

uncooperative. The First Selna Decision upheld the Garrett

Decision in its entirety, and was not appealed. In this appeal,

Guardian suggests that the previous litigation—centered

around Garden Grove’s failure to conduct assessments

through June 17, 2009—should have no bearing on whether

the goals set one day later were supported by appropriate

assessments. Not so. The ability of Garden Grove to obtain

assessments prior to the meeting on June 18, and arrive

armed with that data, is directly relevant to whether any

procedural defectswere excusable. Thus, the Garrett Decision

precludes Guardian from arguing that Garden Grove violated

the IDEA because it failed to assess Carlos in time for the

June 2009 IEP.

B. IEEs 

Guardian argues that Garden Grove violated the IDEA

when it failed to conduct the IEEs she requested in the

comments to the June 2009 IEP. An IEE is “conducted by a

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 12 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 13

qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency

responsible for the education of the child in question.”

34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(3)(i). “If a parent requests an

independent educational evaluation at public expense, the

public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either –

(i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show

that its evaluation is appropriate; or (ii) Ensure that an

independent educational evaluation is provided at public

expense . . . .” Id. § 300.502(b)(2). It is undisputed that

Garden Grove did neither.

ALJ Ruff excused this failure by invoking the May 2009

Settlement Agreement, in which Guardian and Garden Grove

settled the dispute that had been ongoing since November

2007 about what assessments must be conducted. The May

2009 Settlement Agreement explicitly resolves issues only

through the date of execution (May 7) and also resolves

disputes only as to OAH Case Nos. 2009020458 and

2009040166. Neither of those OAH cases are directly on

appeal in this consolidated proceeding, and Guardian made

the IEE request six weeks after the Settlement Agreement

was executed. Thus, the IEEs are perhaps not technically

foreclosed by the language of the Settlement Agreement.

However, they are certainly covered by the substance of the

Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement resolved

an ongoing dispute over assessments; the purpose of those

assessments was to gather data to be used in creating future

IEPs. Guardian agreed that only two assessments were

required, and then six weeks later—at the very next IEP

meeting—claimed that additional assessments were needed

in order to find an appropriate placement for Carlos.

Garden Grove might have been required under the IDEA

to conduct the requested IEEs, because Guardian did not

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 13 of 21
14 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

explicitly relinquish her right to request them in the

Settlement Agreement. However, we agree with the district

court’s alternative conclusion that “[e]ven if the District

should have responded to the [request for an] IEE, there is no

evidence of any substantive denial of FAPE based on this

failure.” Guardian had agreed in the Settlement Agreement

that the two assessments held in Maywere appropriate, which

indicates that she agreed those assessments were all that were

needed to create the upcoming IEP. The lack of prejudice is

further evidenced by the fact that she failed to raise the issue

for two years, “after an intervening IEP was held and

additional testing conducted.”

C. Guardian’s Participation

Guardian was not prevented from meaningfully

participating in the June 2009 IEP meeting. She attended the

meeting, along with her legal counsel. ALJ Ruff found that

Guardian’s counsel was “very active in making comments

and asking questions throughout the meeting.” “District IEP

team members were responsive to counsel’s questions and

comments. At no point during the meeting was Student’s

Guardian or Student’s counsel denied the abilityto participate

in the discussion.” Guardian contends that Garden Grove did

not allow her to discuss the “continuum” of placement

options that might be available to Carlos prior to making its

offer of FAPE. However, Guardian has pointed us to no

statute or case law—and we can find none—indicating that a

guardian is prevented from “participating” in the IEP process

if the school district first prepares an offer to be discussed at

the IEP meeting, instead of conducting a free-wheeling

discussion and then creating an offer, and we see no logical

reason that such would be the case. Although, as ALJ Ruff

noted, it is “improper for the district to prepare an IEP

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 14 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 15

without parental input, with a preexisting, predetermined

program and a ‘take it or leave it’ position,” that did not occur

here.

D. FAPE

We agree with ALJ Ruff and with the district court that

any procedural violation of the IDEA on the part of Garden

Grove is excused because they were directly caused by

Guardian. Furthermore, whether a procedural violation

occurred is only half of the inquiry. We will only reverse the

decision of the ALJ if a procedural violation “is sufficient to

support a finding that the child in question was denied a

FAPE.” Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 892. We conclude that the

June 2009 IEP did not deny Carlos a FAPE.

When reviewing whether a proposed educational setting

is “appropriate,” we employ the “snapshot” rule, which

instructs us to judge an IEP not in hindsight, but instead based

on the information that was reasonablyavailable to the parties

at the time of the IEP. Adams v. Oregon, 195 F.3d 1141, 1149

(9th Cir. 1999). “To the maximum extent appropriate,

children with disabilities . . . are educated with children who

are not disabled . . . .” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A). “[S]pecial

classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with

disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs

only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is

such that education in regular classes with the use of

supplementary aids cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” Id.

This “sets forth Congress’s preference for educating children

with disabilities in regular classrooms with their peers.”

Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H.

ex rel. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1994). To reach

this objective, courts apply a four-part test to review whether

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 15 of 21
16 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

a school district appropriately placed a child outside of a

regular classroom setting. We consider “(1) the educational

benefits of placement full-time in a regular class; (2) the nonacademic benefits of such placement; (3) the effect [the

student] ha[s] on the teacher and children in the regular class;

and (4) the costs of mainstreaming [the student].” Id. at 1404.

There is no indication in the record that Garden Grove’s

failure to assess Carlos prior to making its placement offer

deprived him of a FAPE. The thorough and careful Ruff

Decision points out that at the June 2009 IEP, Garden Grove

team members “understood that they did not have updated

information and therefore proposed to revisit Student’s IEP

after Student had been in the District’s program for 30 days.”

“In light of the background of this case, including the prior

litigation . . . . [this] was an acceptable solution to the lack of

updated information.” In this context, Guardian cannot

persuasivelydemonstrate that the lack of updated assessments

substantially harmed Carlos, or that the resulting offer of

placement at Jordan Intermediate School was not a FAPE.

Indeed, Guardian’s briefing in this case does not articulate

any reason why the June 2009 IEP offer of placement at

Jordan Intermediate School would have been different or

more appropriate had Garden Grove successfully evaluated

Carlos in the months leading up to the June 2009 IEP. At

most, Guardian argues that “without full assessment and

identification of Carlos’ needs,” Garden Grove must have

proposed a placement that was not consistent with those

needs. This generalized argument was not enough to carry the

Guardian’s burden of proof before the ALJ. Schaffer ex rel.

Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005) (“The burden of

proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is

properly placed upon the party seeking relief.”). And on

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 16 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 17

appeal, we cannot conclude that the ALJ’s conclusion on that

score was clearly erroneous. See Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 887.

As to the substance of the offer, we agree with ALJ Ruff

that when we view Garden Grove’s offer through the lens of

the Rachel H. factors,2it was appropriate to place Carlos in a

small-group setting for a transitional period. Carlos and his

Guardian have introduced no evidence to show that Carlos

would have benefitted by a typical classroom setting, and Ms.

Pliha affirmatively testified that he would not have gained a

benefit in such a classroom. Instead, she testified that Carlos

needed to be educated in a one-on-one setting3—which is

even more restrictive than a small-group setting. As to nonacademic benefits, Carlos might have benefitted socially if he

were educated with other students, but Guardian fails to

explain why the small-group setting at Jordan Intermediate

School would not have provided those social benefits. The

two remaining Rachel H. factors do weigh in favor of placing

Carlos in amainstream environment: there is no evidence that

he would have been disruptive in a regular classroom, or that

it would have been cost prohibitive. However, ALJ Ruff

reasonably determined that the first factor—Carlos’s

2 Guardian argues that the June 2009 IEP is defective because Garden

Grove did not explicitly address the Rachel H. factors in that document.

However, Guardian has not cited to any law that suggests the school

district, in the IEP document itself, must justify its placement offer by

explicitly applying the Rachel H. framework. Instead, Rachel H.

articulates a test that courts employ when reviewing the school district’s

decision.

3 Guardian’s contention that Jordan Intermediate School was not

appropriate because it did not include instruction with typical peers is

undermined by her decision to educate Carlos at PLSC instead. At PLSC,

Carlos was educated in a one-on-one setting with no peers—typical or not.

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 17 of 21
18 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

academic needs—weighed most heavilyagainst amainstream

environment. The small classroom offered by Garden Grove

would have been much better for Carlos’s education than

general education, particularly given the testimony by Ms.

Pliha. Therefore, we affirm the conclusion that the June 2009

IEP offered a FAPE.

E. Reimbursement

A parent or guardian is “entitled to reimbursement only

if a federal court concludes both (1) that the public placement

violated the IDEA, and (2) that the private school placement

was proper under the Act.” Cty. of San Diego v. Cal. Special

Educ. Hearing Office, 93 F.3d 1458, 1466 (9th Cir. 1996)

(citing Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. 4 v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7

(1993)). “If both criteria are satisfied, the district court must

then exercise its ‘broad discretion’ and weigh ‘equitable

considerations’ to determine whether, and how much,

reimbursement is appropriate.” C.B. ex rel. Baquerizo v.

Garden Grove Unified Sch. Dist., 635 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th

Cir. 2011) (quoting Carter, 510 U.S. at 15–16).

Because we affirm the district court’s conclusion that the

public placement offer in the June 2009 IEP did not violate

the IDEA, it was proper for the ALJ and the district court to

deny reimbursement.

II. June 2011 IEP

A. Procedural Violations

Before the ALJ, Guardian presented a laundry list of

violations of the IDEA that Garden Grove allegedly

committed with regard to the June 2011 IEP. ALJ Ruff

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 18 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 19

carefully walked through each alleged violation, and

concluded that none was meritorious. On appeal, Guardian

only asserts two arguments: that Garden Grove failed to

assess Carlos for anxiety, and that “[n]o baselines were

determined” for Carlos’s speech and language goals.

As for the anxiety assessment, the ALJ noted that at the

June 2011 IEP meeting, “[t]he team discussed Student’s

anxiety, but did not propose an IEP goal related to anxiety for

Student.” The IEP meeting notes reflect that “Guardian stated

that Pliha knows how to handle [Carlos] and his anxiety,” and

that Carlos managed his anxiety by “tak[ing] deep breaths

and is also on medication.” The school psychologist, Dr.

Keller, testified that although he “noticed that Student was

intense about wanting to perform well,” he would not

“characterize that conduct as anxiety.” Based on that

information, Garden Grove “did not believe anxiety was a

significant area of need for Student as of the June 2011 IEP

meeting.”

The IDEA does not require the school district to conduct

all assessments possible; it requires school districts to decide

what data is needed to determine “the educational needs of

the child,” among other things. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(1)(B). By

Guardian’s own admission at the IEP meeting, an assessment

of Carlos’s anxiety would not have significantly changed the

educational plan in the IEP, because Carlos’s anxiety was

being effectively managed by medication and breathing

exercises.

As to Carlos’s speech and language goals, the contention

before the agency (toward which Guardian only gestures in

her brief on appeal) was that Garden Grove did not have

enough specific information to create a baseline for Carlos in

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 19 of 21
20 BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD

order to build an appropriate goal. The ALJ noted that “a goal

generally requires a baseline,” but in this case, Carlos was

assessed by Ms. Pliha in his one-on-one setting. Both the

school district and Ms. Pliha could not gather the specific

data necessary to build a baseline in this context, because in

order to do so the district needed to observe Carlos’s

“conduct while engaged with peers.” ALJ Ruff concluded

that “under these highly unusual circumstances in which a

pupil was kept out of a classroom environment for

approximately four years,” the school district created an IEP

plan that was as concrete as possible with the available data.

And, like the June 2009 IEP, the June 2011 IEP provided for

a 30-dayreview period, during which the school district could

re-evaluate its plans for Carlos after observing him in the

Buena Park placement while engaged with peers. If Guardian

had accepted the Buena Park placement, the school district

would have been given the opportunity to create a more

concrete goal for Carlos’s speech and language needs.

B. FAPE

The Buena Park placement offer was a FAPE in the LRE

for Carlos, despite the fact that he would not have been

placed in a general education setting with typical peers.

Again, Ms. Pliha testified that Carlos would not benefit from

a general education setting; both Ms. Pliha and Garden Grove

representatives expressed concern that Carlos would have a

difficult time transitioning directly from an individualized

setting to a large classroom. Therefore, Garden Grove’s

proposed compromise—a small classroom setting at Buena

Park—represented a reasonable compromise to help Carlos

transition to a larger classroom. This conclusion is consistent

with the result of the fully and finally litigated dispute over

the 2010–2011 school year. The Myers-Cregar decision,

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 20 of 21
BAQUERIZO V. GARDEN GROVE USD 21

which was upheld by the Second Selna Decision and our

court, ruled that Buena Park was a FAPE for Carlos in 2010

for the express reason that Carlos would have a difficult time

transitioning into a general education classroom after

individualized education. This logic is even stronger when

applied to the June 2011 IEP, after Carlos had been

individually educated for yet another school year.

C. Reimbursement

Because we hold that the June 2011 IEP does not violate

the IDEA, Guardian is not entitled to reimbursement for

Carlos’s private educational expenses during that school year.

Cty. of San Diego, 93 F.3d at 1466.4

CONCLUSION

Because Garden Grove did not violate the IDEA in either

the June 2009 IEP or June 2011 IEP, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

 

4

 The district court properly excluded transcripts of the June 2009 IEP

meeting. ALJ Ruff listened to a recording of the entire meeting, and

Guardian has not shown that she was prejudiced by the exclusion of the

transcripts.

 Case: 14-56464, 06/22/2016, ID: 10024330, DktEntry: 41-1, Page 21 of 21