Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04124/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04124-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

G.W., et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

New Haven Unified School

District, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C05-04124 BZ

ORDER GRANTING JUDGMENT FOR

DEFENDANTS

At plaintiffs' request, a hearing officer at the McGeorge

School of Law Special Education Hearing Office (“SEHO”) held

an administrative due process hearing under the Individuals

with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401, et

seq. The hearing was held from May 31 to June 8, 2005, and

the hearing officer reached a decision adverse to plaintiffs

on August 1, 2005. California Education Code § 56043(q)

requires decisions to be reached in such matters within 45

days from the time a hearing is requested, but in this case

the decision was about 40 days late.

Plaintiffs claim that the delay in the hearing officer’s

reaching a decision caused them “significant harm,” and that

defendant SEHO is responsible for that harm. Complaint ¶ 29. 

Case 3:05-cv-04124-BZ Document 63 Filed 08/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiffs also accuse SEHO of erring in deciding in favor of

the New Haven Unified School District (the “District”). 

Plaintiffs wish to hold the California Department of Education

(“CDE”) responsible for both the delay and this alleged error

on the grounds that since it selected SEHO to provide

hearings, it is responsible for its actions. Plaintiffs have

cited no support for this theory of “vicarious” liability. 

Without deciding whether SEHO or the CDE can be held liable

for an erroneous decision, a theory which seems dubious, since

I have already ruled that the hearing officer did not err in

reaching her decision, I rule in favor of SEHO and the CDE on

this claim. 

Nor have plaintiffs cited any authority for the

proposition that the hearing office or the state can be sued

for the delay in producing a decision. There is no dispute

that the decision was late in violation of the IDEA. The real

question is what the remedy, if any, should be. While

plaintiffs ask for a reversal or remand, plaintiffs have cited

no authority for such relief and neither seems appropriate. 

It seems contrary to the IDEA and the best interests of the

child to vacate or overturn a correct decision simply because

the hearing officer was 40 days late in reaching it. 

Plaintiffs have cited to W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target

Range School District No. 23, Missoula, Montana, 960 F.2d

1479, 1484 (9th Cir. 1992), which holds that procedural

irregularities in the IDEA process which harm the student,

such as by denying him an educational opportunity, could

amount to the denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education

Case 3:05-cv-04124-BZ Document 63 Filed 08/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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

(“FAPE”). Applying that rule to a case involving a delay

suggests that there should not be a reversal or remand unless

plaintiffs can demonstrate that the delay somehow harmed the

child's education. Nothing in the record supports such a

finding and plaintiffs' counsel could not articulate any harm

to the child which resulted from the delay when questioned at

the hearing. Since the hearing officer reached the correct

decision, the court cannot see any way in which the child

could have been harmed by the 40 day delay. The fact that the

child was not attending school during that period was not a

consequence of the hearing officer's delay but of the mother's

decision to home school the child. Defendants cannot be held

liable because there was no harm arising out of the delay, and

the delay therefore does not constitute reversible error. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment in favor

of defendants CDE and SEHO is GRANTED, and plaintiffs'

complaint against them is dismissed.

Dated: August 4, 2006

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\G.W\GrantDefsSumJudgment.2.wpd

Case 3:05-cv-04124-BZ Document 63 Filed 08/04/06 Page 3 of 3