Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08166/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08166-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E.O.
Plaintiff
Matthew Oskowis
Plaintiff
Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District #9
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Matthew Oskowis, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District 

#9, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-08166-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Matthew Oskowis (“Plaintiff”)’s 

administrative appeal of an impartial due process decision brought pursuant to the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Plaintiff contends that 

Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer (“ALJ”) erred in her decision regarding 

four due process complaints filed by Plaintiff on behalf of his son E.O. (“Student”). The 

Court now rules on Plaintiff’s appeal. 

I. Background 

A. Factual Background 

 A comprehensive factual background of this case is set forth in the ALJ’s decision. 

(IRR 260).1

 Only those facts relevant to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Opening Brief 

(Doc. 32) will be presented here. 

 Plaintiff is the father of Student, a ten year old boy at the time Plaintiff filed this 

 

1

 Citations to “IRR” are to document numbers listed in the Index of Record on 

Review filed at Docket 19. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 30
- 2 - 

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 

appeal in September 2014. (Doc. 1 at 8). Student was diagnosed with classical infantile 

autism on March 23, 2006, is non-verbal, and relies on an augmented communications 

system called Picture Exchange Communication System (“PECS”) to demonstrate his 

wants and needs. (Id.) 

 The parties do not dispute Student’s eligibility for special education and related 

services under the IDEA. Since March 11, 2010, Student has attended and received these 

services at West Sedona School in the Sedona Oak-Creak Unified School District #9 

(“District”) located in Sedona, Arizona. (IRR 260 at 4). As mandated by the IDEA, 

Student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) Team conducted annual meetings to 

craft Student’s IEP2

 for the following year. (Id. at 5). Through the course of two meetings 

in August 2012, Student’s IEP Team developed Student’s IEP for the 2012–2013 

academic year (“August 2012 IEP”). (Id.) This lawsuit calls into question District’s 

implementation of the August 2012 IEP. See (Doc. 32). 

 The August 2012 IEP set forth fifteen annual goals and three short-term objectives 

(“STOs”) for each goal. (IRR 192 at 16–24). Practically speaking, STOs are interim steps 

that a student will attempt and attain before undertaking a full-fledged goal. After 

multiple amendments,3

 the August 2012 IEP’s goals and STOs read as follows: 

Goal 1 – Student will match 8 color words (red, blue, green, yellow, 

orange, purple, brown, black) in black type with a corresponding color 

swatch in a field of 8, with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional 

sessions as measured using a trial-by-trial data sheet. Data will be collected 

for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will match 8 color words printed in the 

corresponding color, to an identical color word printed in the 

corresponding color, out of a field of 8 with 80% accuracy across 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will match 8 color words printed in the 

 

2

 In essence, an IEP is a yearly academic roadmap that a school district must create 

and implement for qualifying students. 

3

 The IEP Team amended the August 2012 IEP nine times throughout the 2012–

2013 academic year. See (IRR 260 at 5). 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 30
- 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 

corresponding color to corresponding color swatches, out of field of 8 

with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Student will match 8 color words in the 

corresponding color to corresponding color words in black type, out of 

field of 8 with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 2 - Given 6 photos of familiar people (E.g. Traci, Mary, Ken, Nancy, 

and two peers) in an array of 6, Student will match the correct photo to the 

corresponding printed word with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions, using a trial by trial data sheet. Data will be collected 

for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Given 2 photos of familiar people (e.g. Traci, 

Mary) in array of six, Student will match the correct photo to a photo 

with the corresponding printed word, with 80% accuracy over 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Given 2 photos of familiar people (e.g. Traci, 

Mary) in array of six, Student will match the correct photo to the 

corresponding printed word with 80% accuracy over 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. Given 2 additional photos of familiar people (e.g. 

Ken, Nancy) in an array of six, Student will match the correct photo to a 

photo with the corresponding printed word, with 80% accuracy over 3 

consecutive sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Given 4 photos of familiar people (e.g. Traci, 

Mary, Ken, Nancy) in array of six, Student will match the correct photo 

to the corresponding printed word with 80% accuracy over 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. Given 2 additional photos of familiar 

people (two familiar peers) in array of six, Student will match the 

correct photo to the corresponding photo with the printed word, with 

80% accuracy over 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 3 - Student will match 10 shapes (circle, square, triangle, star, 

diamond, hexagon, octagon, rectangle, heart, oval) in an array of 3, with 

80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions, recorded using a 

trial-by-trial data sheet. Data will be collected for each instructional 

session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will match 4 shapes (circle, square, 

triangle, star) in an array of 3, with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will match 6 shapes (circle, square, 

triangle, star, diamond, hexagon) in an array of 3, with 80% accuracy 

across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 30
- 4 - 

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 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Student will match 8 shapes (circle, square, 

triangle, star, diamond, hexagon, octagon, rectangle) in an array of 3, 

with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 4 - When provided with set up Student will independently brush all 

surfaces of his teeth with 100% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional 

sessions. He will be evaluated using duration recording. Data will be 

collected for each instructional session. 

STO 1: When provided with set up Student will allow staff to put the 

toothbrush on all surfaces of his teeth with 100% accuracy across 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: When provided with set up Student will allow staff to provide 

full physical prompts and put the toothbrush on all surfaces of his teeth 

with 100% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: When provided with set up Student will allow staff to provide 

partial physical prompts and put the toothbrush on all surfaces of his 

teeth with 100% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions. 

Goal 5 - Given the classroom computer, Student will independently open 2 

different web browsers in 2 different locations and click on the bookmark 

to a desired website in more than one location, with 80% accuracy across 3 

consecutive instructional sessions, recorded using a task analysis data sheet. 

Data will be collected for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Given the classroom computer, Student will 

open a web browser in 2 different locations on the screen with 80% 

accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Given the classroom computer, Student will 

open a web browser in 2 different locations on the screen and access a 

desired bookmark in more than one location with 80% accuracy across 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Given the classroom computer, Student will open 

a web browser and access a desired bookmark in more than one location 

with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 6 - Student will develop his social interaction/communication skills by 

participating in a reciprocal turn-taking activity of up to 3 exchanges on 3/5 

opportunities over 2 days with decreasing physical cues (full prompting, 

partial prompting, visual supports only) as measured by trial-by-trial data 

collection. Data will be collected for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will participate in a turn taking activity 

with an adult for 3 exchanges with full physical prompting on 5/5[] 

opportunities. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 30
- 5 - 

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 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will participate in a turn taking activity 

with another peer for 2 exchanges with partial physical prompting on 

5/5 opportunities. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, [Student] will participate in a turn taking activity 

with another peer for 3 exchanges with partial prompting on 3/5 

opportunities. 

Goal 7: Given his PECS book, Student will move the “I want” picture to 

the left side of the sentence strip and remove the reinforcer picture from the 

communication book and place it on the sentence strip, hand it to his 

communication partner and point to each icon in the correct order, for 12 

new vocabulary words, with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions as measured using trial-by-trial data sheets during 

each instructional session. Data will be collected using SLP made 

assessments, a minimum of 1 time per week by SLP. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will request 6 new vocabulary words by 

moving the “I want” picture to the left side of the sentence strip and 

removing the reinforcer picture from the communication book and 

placing it on the sentence strip, handing it to his communication partner 

and pointing to each icon in the correct order, with 80% accuracy across 

3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will request 9 new vocabulary words by 

moving the “I want” picture to the left side of the sentence strip and 

removing the reinforcer picture from the communication book and 

placing it on the sentence strip, handing it to his communication partner 

and pointing to each icon in the correct order, with 80% accuracy across 

3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Student will request 12 new vocabulary words by 

moving the “I want” picture to the left side of the sentence strip and 

removing the reinforcer picture from the communication book and 

placing it on the sentence strip, handing it to his communication partner 

and pointing to each icon in the correct order, with 80% accuracy across 

3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 8 - Given photos of six 3-step actions, Student will complete the 

action described with 100% accuracy across 3 consecutive sessions, 

recorded using a trial-by-trial data sheet. Data will be collected for each 

instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Given photos of two 3-step actions and partial 

physical prompting, Student will complete the action described with 

100% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Given photos of two 3-step actions, Student will 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 5 of 30
- 6 - 

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 

complete the action described with 100% accuracy across 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Given photos of four 3-step actions, Student will 

complete the action described with 100% accuracy across 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. 

Goal 9 - Given 13 objects (e.g. cow, horse, dog, duck, cat, car, truck, school 

bus, fire truck, motorcycle, jeep, ambulance, police car) and mats or story 

boards representing 2 categories (animals and vehicles), Student will sort 

objects into the appropriate categories with 80% accuracy across 3 

consecutive instructional sessions, recorded using a trial by trial data sheet. 

Data will be collected for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Given 5 objects (e.g. cow, horse, car, truck, 

school bus), mats or story boards representing 2 categories (animals and 

vehicles) and gestural prompts, Student will sort objects into the 

appropriate categories 4 out of 5 trials on 3 consecutive instructional 

sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Given 5 objects (e.g. cow, horse, car, truck, 

school bus) and mats or story boards representing 2 categories (animals 

and vehicles), Student will sort objects into the appropriate categories 4 

out of 5 trials on 3 consecutive instructional sessions. Given 10 objects 

(e.g. cow, horse, dog, duck, car, truck, school bus, fire truck, 

motorcycle, jeep), mats or story boards representing 2 categories 

(animals and vehicles), and gestural prompts, Student will sort objects 

into the appropriate categories 4 out of 5 trials on 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Given 10 objects (e.g. cow, horse, dog, duck, car, 

truck, school bus, fire truck, motorcycle, jeep), and mats or storyboards 

representing 2 categories (animals and vehicles), Student will sort 

objects into the appropriate categories 4 out of 5 trials on 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. By 3/8/2013, Given 13 objects (e.g., cow, horse, 

dog, duck, cat, car, truck, school bus, fire truck, motorcycle, jeep, 

ambulance, police car), mats or story boards representing 2 categories 

(animals and vehicles), and gestural prompts, Student will sort objects 

into the appropriate categories 4 out of 5 trials on 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. 

Goal 10 - Using motivational/reinforcing materials, in structured and 

unstructured environments, Student will engage in developmental age 

appropriate parallel play near peers, for 10 minutes, with no prompts, 

across 3 consecutive instructional sessions, as measured by teacher data 

collection/notations. Data will be collected for each instructional session. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 6 of 30
- 7 - 

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 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, using motivational/reinforcing materials, in 

structured and unstructured environments, Student will engage in 

parallel play near peers for 7 minutes, with 2 prompts, over 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, using motivational/reinforcing materials, in 

structured and unstructured environments, Student will engage in 

parallel play near peers for 8 minutes, with 1 prompt, over 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, using motivational/reinforcing materials, in 

structured and unstructured environments, Student will engage in 

parallel play near peers for 9 minutes, with no prompts, over 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 11 - Given an outline of 3 different shapes on a half sheet of lettersize paper (e.g. square, circle, triangle), Student will color in the area of the 

shape with 80% coverage, on 8 of 10 opportunities over 3 consecutive 

instructional sessions, as measured by a worksheet permanent product to 

record data, Data will be collected for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Given an outline of 3 different shapes (e.g. 

square, circle, triangle) on a half sheet of letter-size paper, Student will 

color in the 3 shapes with 35% coverage, on 8 out of 10 opportunities 

over 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Given an outline of 3 different shapes (e.g. 

square, circle, triangle) on a half sheet of letter-size paper, Student will 

color in the 3 shapes with 50% coverage, on 8 out of 10 opportunities 

over 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Given an outline of 3 different shapes (e.g. square, 

circle, triangle) on a half sheet of letter-size paper, Student will color in 

the 3 shapes with 75% coverage, on 8 out of 10 opportunities over 3 

consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 12 - Given 6 simple oral instructions (e.g. hands up, pick it up, push, 

pull, give me, take) from 2 people and in 2 different settings, Student will 

follow instructions with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional 

sessions, recorded using a trial-by-trial data sheet. Data will be collected 

for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will follow 1 simple oral instruction 

(e.g. hands up) with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional 

sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will follow 3 simple oral instructions 

(e.g. hands up, pick it up, push) from 2 people and in 2 different 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 7 of 30
- 8 - 

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 

settings, with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Student will follow 4 simple oral instructions (e.g. 

hands up, pick it up, push, pull) from 2 people and in 2 different 

settings, with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 13 - Given models of 6 object motor actions (e.g. shake a maraca, roll 

a ball, push a car on a track, fly a plane, wave a bubble wand, put a piece 

into a Mr. Potato Head), and a direction to “do this,” Student will 

independently imitate the object motor action with 80% accuracy across 3 

consecutive instructional sessions, recorded using a trial by trial data sheet. 

Data will be collected for each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Given models of 2 motor actions (e.g. shake a 

maraca, roll a ball), a direction to “do this,” and partial physical 

prompting, Student will imitate the object motor action with 80% 

accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Given models of 2 motor actions (e.g. shake a 

maraca, roll a ball), [and] a direction to “do this,” Student will 

independently imitate the object motor action with 80% accuracy 

across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. Given models of 2 motor 

actions (e.g. push a car on a track, fly a plane), a direction to “do this” 

and partial physical prompting, Student will imitate the object motor 

action with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Given models of 4 motor actions (e.g. shake a 

maraca, roll a ball, push a car on a track, fly a plane) and a direction to 

“do this,” Student will independently imitate the object motor action 

with 80% accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. Given 

models of 2 motor actions (e.g. wave a bubble wand, put a piece into a 

Mr. Potato Head), a direction to “do this,” and partial physical 

prompting, Student will imitate the object motor action with 80% 

accuracy across 3 consecutive instructional sessions. 

Goal 14 - Student will independently rise to a stand from the floor using a 

half-kneel position, with only one hand for support, 2 times in one session, 

on 3 different sessions, measured using staff logs. Data will be collected for 

each instructional session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will rise to stand via a half-kneel 

position, with one hand for support, once. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will rise to stand via a half-kneel 

position, with one hand for support, 2 times in one session. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Student will rise to stand via a half-kneel position, 

with one hand for support, 2 times in one session, over 3 sessions. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 8 of 30
- 9 - 

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 

Goal 15 - When seated on a playground swing and after being given a push 

to start, Student will pump the swing by actively moving his arms, trunk, 

and/or legs 12 times in a row, twice in one session, over 3 different 

sessions, measured using staff logs. Data will be collected for each session. 

STO 1: By 10/12/2012, Student will pump a swing 6 times in a row, 2 

times in one session. 

STO 2: By 12/21/2012, Student will pump a swing 12 times in a row, 2 

times in one session. 

STO 3: By 3/8/2013, Student will pump a swing 12 times in a row, 2 

times in one session, over 3 sessions. 

(IRR 260 at 5–11). At the time of adoption, Plaintiff and Tara Middlebrook-Oskowis 

(collectively “Parents”) approved the August 2012 IEP as adequate and reasonably 

calculated to provide an educational benefit to Student. (IRR 260 at 12). 

 Notably, the August 2012 IEP also specified that “[s]pecial education staff will 

take data daily” and “[d]ata format will be utilized as determined by mediation 

agreement.” (IRR 192 at 28). The August 2012 IEP did not specify which mediation 

agreement was to control, and the parties did not clarify this for the Court.4

 

B. Procedural Background 

 The record clearly shows that Parents have been actively involved in Student’s 

education by vigorously pursuing the rights and remedies allotted under the IDEA. 

Particularly, Parents routinely reported their concerns regarding Student’s educational 

progress to the IEP Team, consistently advocated for additional information regarding the 

implementation of Student’s IEP, requested that District provide supplemental services 

that extend beyond the traditional educational curriculum provided in the classroom, and 

filed multiple due process complaints that predate the due process complaints underlying 

 

4

 The ALJ noted that the operative mediation agreement was not offered into 

evidence during the administrative hearings. (IRR 260 at 11). After review of the parties’ 

filings and the administrative record, the relevant agreement could be the October 25, 

2011 mediation agreement between District and Parents stating that “[d]ata sheets will be 

revised to include criteria and notations when appropriate for tracking goals agreed upon 

by the IEP team.” (IRR 245 at 2). According to Plaintiff’s third due process complaint, 

the utilized “data format” was to be the “comprehensive data sheet.” (Doc. 1-1 at 59). 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 9 of 30
- 10 - 

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 

this lawsuit. Parents’ actions, however, have contributed to an increasingly strained 

relationship with District. 

 This appeal emerges from the ALJ’s decision regarding four due process 

complaints filed by Plaintiff. See (Doc. 1). On July 12, 2013, Plaintiff submitted the first 

underlying due process complaint alleging that District failed to properly implement the 

August 2012 IEP thereby depriving Student of a free appropriate public education 

(“FAPE”) for the 2012–2013 academic year. (Doc. 1-1 at 2–19). In this complaint, 

Plaintiff argued that District disregarded the August 2012 IEP by not advancing Student 

to the next STO within a reasonable time after mastering a prior STO. (Id. at 11–16). 

Plaintiff also asserted that District violated the August 2012 IEP by failing to consistently 

implement certain STOs. (Id.) As relief, Plaintiff requested compensatory educational 

service hours and the appointment of a recognized independent, third-party authority to 

supervise and oversee Student’s educational program. (Id. at 16–19). 

 Approximately one month after Plaintiff filed the first due process complaint in 

dispute here, Student’s IEP Team met to begin drafting Student’s IEP for the 2013–2014 

academic year. (IRR 260 at 17). The IEP Team assembled on four different occasions 

between May and August 2013 to develop the IEP. (Id.) During these meetings, Parents 

believed they were not given sufficient opportunity to voice their concerns and be heard 

by the IEP Team. (Doc. 1-1 at 28–47). Consequently, Plaintiff filed a second due process 

complaint on September 3, 2013 claiming that District violated the IDEA by deliberately 

seeking to limit parental participation in the IEP development process. (Id.) This second 

complaint also alleged that District failed to provide a complete set of Student’s 

educational records upon request, that an occupational therapist and a speech therapist 

were not present at the May 9, 2013 Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team meeting as 

required, and that the Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) issued to Parents following the 

August 15, 2013 IEP meeting was defective. (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff requested that the 

August 2012 IEP remain in effect until a new IEP could be developed for the 2013–2014 

academic year. (Id.) 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 10 of 30
- 11 - 

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 

 In November 2013, the two due process complaints were consolidated and the 

ALJ conducted a three-day administrative hearing to review the two complaints. 

(IRR 260 at 3). Before the ALJ rendered a decision, however, Plaintiff filed a third due 

process complaint on November 26, 2013 with the Arizona Department of Educational 

Exceptional Student Services Dispute Resolution Unit (“Resolution Unit”). (Id.) This 

complaint alleged that District violated the IDEA by failing to provide Student with 1,200 

special education service minutes and 200 minutes of Sensory Diet by an Occupational 

Therapist on a weekly basis, as required by the August 2012 IEP. (Id.) For relief, Plaintiff 

sought 350 compensatory educational service hours, 117 hours of compensatory 

occupational therapy, and the appointment of an independent third-party authority to 

supervise and oversee Student’s educational program. (Id.) 

 Because the ALJ determined that the issues raised in the three due process 

complaints were substantially related, she consolidated the complaints and reopened the 

record to receive further evidence. (Id.) Subsequently, on January 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed 

a fourth due process complaint with the Resolution Unit contending that District violated 

the IDEA by failing to provide Parents with PWNs of changes to the August 2012 IEP. 

(Id. at 3–4). As relief, Plaintiff requested an independent, third-party be assigned to 

supervise and oversee Student’s educational program. (Id. at 4). 

 Because the issues raised in the fourth due process complaint were substantially 

related to the prior three complaints, all four cases were consolidated and a second 

administrative hearing was held on April 2, 2014. (Id.). On August 4, 2014, the ALJ 

issued her decision after requesting two time extensions. (Id. at 1, 27). In her decision, the 

ALJ concluded that District denied Student a FAPE when it failed to advance Student to 

the next STO within a reasonable time once Student demonstrated mastery of a prior 

STO. (Id. at 21–22). This failure, the ALJ found, related to four of the fifteen annual 

goals in the August 2012 IEP—specifically, Goals 1, 2, 3, and 13. (Id. at 22, 26). The 

ALJ further concluded that Parents were afforded the opportunity to meaningfully 

participate in the development of Student’s 2013–2014 IEP and denied Plaintiff’s various 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 11 of 30
- 12 - 

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 

other procedural complaints. (Id. at 22–26). Ultimately, because “[n]either party 

presented any evidence to demonstrate what portion of Student’s typical day would have 

been spent engaged in [Goals 1, 2, 3, and 13],” the ALJ, in her “discretion,” awarded 

Student ninety compensatory hours. (Id. at 26–27). 

II. Legal Standards 

A. The IDEA 

 The IDEA was originally enacted to require state educational agencies receiving 

federal funds to provide special education services for children with qualifying 

disabilities. See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The IDEA mandates that public school 

districts provide qualifying students a “basic floor of opportunity”; it does not obligate 

the school to maximize each child’s potential. Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. 

Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 198–204 (1982); see J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. 

Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 439 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that compliance with the IDEA does 

not require school districts to provide the “absolutely best” or “potential-maximizing” 

education (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, a child will be deemed 

to have received a FAPE if the program of instruction: “(1) addresses his unique needs, 

(2) provides adequate support services so he can take advantage of the educational 

opportunities, and (3) is in accord with an [IEP].” Park, ex rel. Park v. Anaheim Union 

High Sch. Dist., 464 F.3d 1025, 1033 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Capistrano Unified Sch. 

Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884, 893 (9th Cir. 1995)); see 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). 

 To provide a FAPE in compliance with the IDEA, a public school district must 

evaluate a student, determine whether that student is eligible for special education, and 

formulate and implement an IEP. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414. An IEP informs how a qualifying 

child is to be educated, especially with regard to the child’s needs that result from the 

child’s disability. Pursuant to the IDEA, school districts are required to construct an IEP 

Team comprised of various school personnel and the student’s parents to develop an IEP 

for each qualifying student. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(B). Within a student’s IEP are annual goals, 

and for students who do not take a standard state assessment, each annual goal of the 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 12 of 30
- 13 - 

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 

student’s IEP is required to have STOs. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)(cc). The IEP Team must 

consider the strengths of the child, concerns of the parents, evaluation results, and the 

academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. Id. § 1414(d)(3)(A). 

 Regarding IEP implementation, the Ninth Circuit has held that “a material failure 

to implement an IEP violates the IDEA. A material failure occurs when there is more 

than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and 

the services required by the child’s IEP.” Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 

815 (9th Cir. 2007). Although this standard “does not require that the child suffer 

demonstrable educational harm in order to prevail[,] the child’s educational progress, or 

lack of it, may be probative of whether there has been more than a minor shortfall in the 

services provided.” Id. at 822. 

B. Standard of Review 

 The IDEA grants judicial review to parties who are dissatisfied with the findings 

and decision rendered in an administrative hearing. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). The 

party challenging the ALJ’s decision bears the burden of persuasion at the judicial level. 

See, e.g., L.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 556 F.3d 900, 910 (9th Cir. 2009); 

Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005). 

 Pursuant to the IDEA, federal courts accord considerably less deference to state 

administrative proceedings than they do in other instances of “judicial review of . . . 

agency actions, in which courts generally are confined to the administrative record and 

are held to a highly deferential standard of review.” E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. 

Dist. Office of Admin. Hearings, 652 F.3d 999, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted). 

The IDEA empowers the reviewing court to hear evidence that goes beyond the scope of 

the administrative record and, based on a preponderance of the evidence, “grant such 

relief as the court determines is appropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C). On the other 

hand, “[c]omplete de novo review . . . is inappropriate.” Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. 

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

proceedings are accorded “due weight” and the reviewing court must “consider the 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 13 of 30
- 14 - 

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 

findings carefully[.]” R.B. ex rel. F.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932, 

937 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted); see L.M., 556 F.3d at 908 (finding that courts are 

“free to determine independently how much weight to give the administrative findings 

[but] the courts are not permitted simply to ignore [them]”). An ALJ’s “thorough and 

careful” findings can receive “particular deference.” Napa Valley, 496 F.3d at 937 (citing 

Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 (9th Cir. 1994)); see Adams v. Oregon, 195 

F.3d 1141, 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he amount of deference bestowed upon the 

hearing officer is increased where her findings are thorough and complete.” (quotation 

omitted)). “In the end, however, the court is free to determine independently how much 

weight to give the state hearing officer’s determinations.” Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents 

of Student R.J., 588 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). 

 The ALJ’s decision in this case is a twenty-seven page order setting forth the 

witnesses, procedural history, evidence and issues raised at the two hearings, detailed 

findings of fact with citations to the record, and a recitation and application of the law. 

See (IRR 260). The decision expressly states that the ALJ “has read and considered each 

admitted Exhibit” and “considered the testimony of every witness,” even if not 

mentioned in the decision. (Id. at 4). The transcripts of the four days of hearings also 

show that the ALJ questioned witnesses to further develop her understanding of the facts 

and issues in dispute. The ALJ’s decision contains citations to the supporting documents 

and testimony and is “thorough and careful.” The ALJ’s conclusions of law are thorough 

and set forth the legal standard with citations to case law and statutes. Further, the ALJ 

was conscious of the applicable legal standards and applied those standards. Under these 

circumstances, the Court concludes that the ALJ’s findings are entitled to “particular 

deference.” See Napa Valley, 496 F.3d at 937; Sam M. V. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 

556b F.3d 900, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that an ALJ’s twenty page decision 

“certainly met” the standard of “thorough and careful”). 

III. Analysis 

In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ committed eighteen errors. See 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 14 of 30
- 15 - 

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 

(Doc. 1 at 11–13). In his Opening Brief, however, Plaintiff presents and addresses only 

six questions for judicial review. See (Doc. 32 at 2–3).5

 The dozen errors listed in 

Plaintiff’s Complaint but not briefed in his Opening Brief are therefore deemed 

abandoned and waived for failure to brief the arguments. See M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. 

Dist., 767 F.3d 842, 861 (9th Cir. 2014) as amended (Oct. 1, 2014) (“The parents fail to 

brief the stayed Department of Education investigation theory, and it is therefore waived. 

Likewise, we do not address number 14 and number 26 of the parents’ questions 

presented for failure to brief the arguments.”); United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 

1125, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that issues raised in an appellate brief but not 

supported by argument are abandoned); Greenwood v. F.A.A., 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 

1994) (“We review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly in a party’s 

opening brief. We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion 

does not preserve a claim, particularly when, as here, a host of other issues are presented 

for review.” (citations omitted)). 

 In his Opening Brief, Plaintiff first contends that the ALJ erred when she 

concluded that Student received a FAPE for eleven of the fifteen annual goals during the 

2012–2013 academic year. (Doc. 32 at 2). Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that District did 

not timely advance Student to the next STO after mastery of a prior STO and failed to 

consistently implement several STOs. (Id.) Plaintiff next argues that the ALJ erred by 

awarding only ninety compensatory hours to Student. (Id.) Third, Plaintiff claims that the 

ALJ erred by not considering Ken Baumgartner’s statements related to the calculation of 

educational service hours. (Id. at 3). Fourth, Plaintiff complains that the ALJ erred by 

issuing her ruling 124 days after the final due process hearing. (Id.) Fifth, Plaintiff 

contends the ALJ erred by issuing her ruling 388 days after the first due process 

complaint was filed. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ erred by waiting to issue 

 

5

 Plaintiff also noted in his Opening Brief that throughout the “course of this brief, 

the Plaintiff has demonstrated all of the key points that the ALJ erred in her decision.” 

(Id. at 11) (emphasis added). 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 15 of 30
- 16 - 

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 

her decision for the first and second complaints until after a hearing on the third and 

fourth complaints. (Id.) 

 The parties have filed with the Court the record from the administrative 

proceedings. (Doc. 19). Neither party has asked the Court to consider additional 

evidence. The Court will now review each of Plaintiff’s arguments in turn. 

A. Did the ALJ err by finding that District properly implemented eleven 

 of the fifteen annual goals in Student’s August 2012 IEP? 

 Plaintiff’s first contention is that the ALJ erred when she concluded that District 

failed to adequately implement only four of the fifteen annual goals in Student’s August 

2012 IEP. (Doc. 32 at 4–5). As Plaintiff explains, the first due process complaint alleged 

that District failed to: (A) timely advance Student to the next STO after mastery of a prior 

STO for Goals 1, 3, 6, and 10; and (B) appropriately implement Goals 2, 7, 8, and 11 due 

to inconsistent approaches. See (Doc. 1-1 at 12). Although Plaintiff’s first due process 

complaint alleged improper implementation of Goals 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, the ALJ 

provided her reasoning for Goals 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13. See (IRR 260 at 12–13). 

Plaintiff thus asserts that the ALJ erred by “leaving out” Goals 6, 10, and 11 and also by 

incorrectly analyzing Goals 7 and 8. (Doc. 32 at 5).6

 

 Plaintiff’s first due process complaint alleges that Student was denied a FAPE as a 

result of District’s delay in advancing Student to the next STO for Goals 6 and 10. 

(Doc. 1-1 at 13). The Court does not agree. As stated above, a “material failure occurs 

when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a 

disabled child and the services required by the child’s IEP.” Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 815. 

According to the data sheets for Goal 6, Student appeared to master STO 3 on January 

16, 2013 but was not advanced to the full goal for the remainder of the school year. (IRR 

159). On its face, District’s failure to advance Student to the final goal for five months 

 

6

 Plaintiff does not claim that the ALJ overstepped her authority by considering 

Goals 12 and 13, which were not asserted in the first due process complaint. Moreover, 

beyond stating that the ALJ erred, Plaintiff’s Opening Brief does not explain why the 

ALJ’s analysis was incorrect for any of the goals. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 16 of 30
- 17 - 

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 

appears to be a “material failure to implement” Goal 6. However, an examination of the 

data sheets leads to a different conclusion. Although the data sheets show that Student 

worked on STO 3 after January 16, 2013, Student was actually attempting the full goal as 

he was independently participating in turn-taking activities of up to three exchanges over 

two days. See (id.) The Court finds that this “minor discrepancy” was not a “material 

failure” on behalf of District. See Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 815. 

 A review of the data sheets for Goal 10 produces the same result. Although 

District recorded that Student was attempting STO 3 for Goal 10, the data sheets show 

that Student was attempting the tasks designated as the full goal. See (IRR 163). 

Specifically, Goal 10 required Student to engage in “developmental age appropriate 

parallel play” near peers for increasing periods of time and with decreasing prompting 

from an instructor. See (IRR 192 at 21). STO 3 required Student to engage in parallel 

play with no prompts for nine minutes, while the full goal required the same actions but 

for ten minutes. (Id.) Although the data sheets record that Student likely satisfied STO 3’s 

requirements in February 2013 and continued working on STO 3 until the end of the 

school year, Student was given the opportunity to engage in parallel play near peers for 

ten minutes or longer for the vast majority of the remaining sessions. See (IRR 163). 

Consequently, the Court finds that District did not materially fail to implement Goal 10. 

 Plaintiff next contends that the ALJ erred by finding that District’s “inconsistent 

approaches” to Goals 7 and 8 did not deny Student a FAPE. (Doc. 32 at 5). The 

inconsistencies—if there were any at all—with District’s implementation of Goals 7 and 

8 were “minor discrepancies” not “material failures.” Specifically, as to Goal 7, Student 

was allowed numerous opportunities to request missing items (e.g., spoon, fork, mouse, 

DVD, drink, French fry, remote, chair, ball, game, puzzle, and train) with the “I want” 

icon from his PECS book. See (IRR 160). Similarly, for Goal 8, although District 

provided Student with one and two three-step actions instead of always two three-step 

actions, this was not a material failure but a minor discrepancy. See (IRR 161). As Dr. 

Spencer and Mr. Baumgartner explained, special education teachers must be afforded 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 17 of 30
- 18 - 

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 

flexibility in their instructional methods in order to adapt to a student’s particular needs 

each day. (IRR 263 at 108, 215). Ultimately, even though District arguably may have 

taken modified approaches to Goals 7 and 8, Student received a “basic floor of 

opportunity”—which is all the IDEA requires. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198–204. 

 Plaintiff finally contends that the ALJ erred by “leaving out” Goal 11. (Doc. 32 at 

5). Plaintiff’s first due process complaint alleges that District denied Student a FAPE 

regarding Goal 11 due to “inconsistent approaches.” (Doc. 1-1 at 13). After reviewing the 

data sheets, the Court finds that District’s implementation of Goal 11 was sufficiently 

aligned with the STOs such that Student was afforded a “basic floor of opportunity.” 

Specifically, Goal 11 required Student to color three geometric shapes with increasing 

levels of within-the-lines coverage. (IRR 192 at 20). While implementing this goal, 

District always permitted Student to color three shapes and simply advanced Student to 

the next STO with a higher coverage percentage. See (IRR 164). There is no substantive 

difference from one STO to the next in this regard—Student always colored three 

shapes—and any inconsistency in District’s approach was a minor discrepancy not a 

material failure. 

 For these reasons, the Court finds that the ALJ did not err when she determined 

that District properly implemented eleven of fifteen annual goals in the August 2012 IEP. 

 B. Did the ALJ err in awarding Student ninety compensatory hours? 

Plaintiff next contends that the ALJ erred by awarding Student ninety 

compensatory hours. (Doc. 32 at 5–9). District responds that the ALJ properly exercised 

her discretion in awarding this amount and argues that the Ninth Circuit does not compel 

an ALJ to award compensatory education on a “minute-by-minute” basis. (Doc. 33 at 7–9 

(citing Park, 464 F.3d at 1033)). 

 The ALJ calculated her award of ninety compensatory hours in the following 

manner: 

35. Neither party presented any evidence to demonstrate what portion of 

Student’s typical day would have been spent engaged in those annual goals. 

Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge has discretion in fashioning an 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 18 of 30
- 19 - 

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 

appropriate award of compensatory education. 

36. The times during which Student remained on an STO after 

demonstrating mastery and before being advanced to the next STO with 

respect to these four annual goals averaged between six and seven months. 

The annual goals identified fall into the categories of Basic Reading Skills, 

Math, and Listening Comprehension. According to the August 2012 IEP, 

those areas of special education services account for 480 minutes per week 

of instruction, or 96 minutes per day. However, these annual goals do not 

represent the only instruction provided to Student within those areas. 

Generously estimating that the four annual goals constituted 40 percent of 

Student’s instruction in those areas, the minutes lost to Student due to 

Respondent School’s material failure to implement the IEP in those areas 

can be calculated as follows: 40 percent of 96 minutes per day would be 

approximately 38 minutes per day, and 38 minutes per day over seven 

months of 20 days per month would be 5320 minutes or approximately 89 

hours. 

37. Accordingly, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Student is 

entitled to compensatory education for that failure to provide Student a 

FAPE with respect to those Annual Goals in the amount of 90 hours. 

(IRR 260 at 26–27). Notwithstanding the “particular deference” given to the ALJ’s 

decision, the Court has identified two errors in the ALJ’s calculations that such deference 

cannot overlook. First, the Court does not agree that the four identified goals only relate 

to Basic Reading Skills, Math, and Listening Comprehension. Second, the underlying 

basis of the ALJ’s award was that the improperly implemented goals did “not represent 

the only instruction provided to Student within those areas” but “generously” constituted 

forty percent of the instruction for those areas. (Id. at 27). As discussed below, this 

approximation is unsupported by the record. 

 1. Designation of Annual Goals 

 Once the ALJ determined that District improperly implemented four annual goals 

of the August 2012 IEP, the next step was to develop an equitable way to calculate 

compensatory education for those goals. Because the August 2012 IEP did not include a 

specific time quota for each goal, the ALJ associated the goals with categories of 

“Special Education Services” listed in the final section of the IEP. (Id. at 25–26). As each 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 19 of 30
- 20 - 

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 

Special Education Service category was apportioned a set number of service minutes for 

each week or month, the ALJ found this to be a reasonable method of calculating how 

many compensatory education hours to award Student. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded 

that Goals 1 and 2 correlated with the category of Basic Reading Skills, Goal 3 associated 

with Math, and Goal 13 related to Listening Comprehension. (Id. at 26–27). 

 The Court agrees that calculating compensatory education hours in this case is best 

accomplished by matching the annual goals with Special Education Services categories.

According to the August 2012 IEP, the annual goals relate to the following “Skill Areas”: 

A. Goals 1 and 2: Language Arts 

B. Goal 3: Math 

C. Goals 4 and 5: Daily Living Skills 

D. Goals 6, 7, and 8: Communication 

E. Goals 9, 10, 11, and 12: Social Emotional 

F. Goals 13, 14, and 15: Related Services 

(IRR 192 at 16–24). The August 2012 IEP also allocates the number of service minutes to 

be provided to Student. The minutes are set forth as follows: 

A. Special Education Services to be Provided 

1. Activities of Daily Living: 100 minutes per week 

2. Basic Reading Skills: 200 minutes per week 

3. Math: 180 minutes per week 

4. Written Expression: 200 minutes per week 

5. Interpersonal/Social Skills: 200 minutes per week 

6. Oral Expression: 100 minutes per week 

7. Listening Comprehension: 100 minutes per week 

B. Related Services 

 1. Occupational Therapy: 120 minutes per month 

 2. Physical Therapy: 90 minutes per month 

 3. Speech: 240 minutes per month 

C. Supplementary Aids/Assistive Technology and Services for Students 

 1. PECS: 1,200 minutes per week 

 2. Paraprofessional: 1,200 minutes per week 

 3. Sensory Diet: 200 minutes per week 

(Id. at 28–29). As readily observed, the IEP’s service minute categories do not mirror the 

Skill Areas attributed to the annual goals. Although Plaintiff believes this “obfuscation 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 20 of 30
- 21 - 

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 

[was] done intentionally to eliminate the Defendant’s accountability regarding the IEP 

since there is no way to easily ascertain how many service minutes are assigned to which 

goal,” (Doc. 32 at 6), his argument is belied by Parents’ direct participation and approval 

of the IEP’s language and content, see (IRR 260 at 12). Nevertheless, the ALJ and this 

Court were left with four improperly implemented annual goals that do not directly match 

with service minute categories. 

 Although the Court agrees with the ALJ that Goals 1 and 2 correlate with Basic 

Reading Skills and Goal 3 associates with Math, the ALJ erred by designating Goal 13 

only as Listening Comprehension. Goal 13 is identified as a “Related Service”7

 with the 

“Service Providers” listed as “Special Education Teacher, Paraprofessional, and 

OT/OTA.” (IRR 192 at 23). The only “provider” identified for Occupational Therapy8

 is 

“OT/OTA,” see (id. at 28), and the only annual goal with an OT/OTA service provider is 

Goal 13, see (id. at 23). Thus, Goal 13 must associate with the Related Service of 

Occupational Therapy. Furthermore, the “Occupational Therapy Notes” recorded in the 

August 2012 IEP describe Student’s ability to perform the activities outlined in Goal 13. 

See (id. at 10) (describing Student’s ability to perform “object motor actions” with the 

verbal direction to “do this”). Accordingly, the ALJ erred by not designating Goal 13 as 

both Listening Comprehension and Occupational Therapy.9

 

 

7

 Services qualify as “related services” if they are supportive services required for 

a disabled child to benefit from special education. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 

U.S. 883 (1984). Related services are defined as “such developmental, corrective, and 

other supportive services . . . as may be required to assist a child with a disability to 

benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of 

disabling conditions in children.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A). 

8

 Occupational therapy is provided to address: “(A) Improving, developing or 

restoring functions impaired or lost through illness, injury, or deprivation; (B) Improving 

ability to perform tasks for independent functioning if functions are impaired or lost; and 

(C) Preventing, through early intervention, initial or further impairment or loss of 

function.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(c)(6)(ii). 

9

 Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred by not considering certain statements made by 

Student’s special education teacher during the August 2012 IEP meeting when 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 21 of 30
- 22 - 

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. Service Minutes 

 As a second error, the Court finds that the ALJ incorrectly concluded that Goals 1, 

2, and 3 were forty percent of the instruction provided to Student within the Basic 

Reading Skills and Math categories. Although an ALJ has considerable discretion in her 

analysis, it appears, as Plaintiff argues, that the ALJ “pulled a number out of thin air.” 

(Doc. 32 at 8). The ALJ offered no justification for her forty percent figure and uniformly 

applied it to each improperly implemented goal.10 Contrary to the ALJ’s forty percent 

determination, the only annual goals that plausibly correlate with the Special Education 

Service category of Basic Reading Skills are Goals 1 and 2. Similarly, Goal 3 is the only 

goal attributed to the Special Education Service of Math. Because there is no overlap 

with other annual goals in these Special Education Service areas, the Court finds that the 

ALJ should have awarded the full service minutes allotted by the August 2012 IEP. 

 For these reasons, the Court holds as follows: 

 

associating annual goals with Special Education Services. (Doc. 32 at 3). The Court has 

reviewed the portion of the August 2012 IEP meeting to which Plaintiff refers, but does 

not find that it compels a different association beyond finding that Goal 13 relates to 

Occupational Therapy. 

10 The ALJ did mention that “the evidence established that there were numerous 

instructional sessions throughout Student’s day that could not have been reduced to a 

DTT data sheet.” (IRR 260 at 22). In this regard, the ALJ deemed persuasive the 

testimony of Dr. Trina Spencer who explained that other, non-recorded experiences 

during the school day provided Student with an educational benefit related to these 

service areas. (Id. at 14). Dr. Spencer emphasized, however, that these non-“sitting at a 

table” activities were “especially” important for “natural language” and “natural social 

interaction.” (IRR 262 at 268; 260 at 14). While the Court finds value in Dr. Spencer’s 

testimony, Student was denied a FAPE with regard to math and reading, subjects 

requiring repetition and “sitting at a table.” These academic fields are unlike “natural 

language” and “natural social interaction” which, as Dr. Spencer observed, necessitate a 

high level of social involvement. See (IRR 262 at 268). 

As to Goal 13, the Court will not speculate as to what portion of Student’s day was 

devoted to non-data-sheet-recorded Listening Comprehension activities. The August 

2012 IEP expressly required District to record data daily, and the ALJ’s arbitrary 

determination that District delivers sixty percent of the allotted time without 

documentation was error. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 22 of 30
- 23 - 

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 

 Goal 13 is the only annual goal associated with the Related Service of 

Occupational Therapy. Plaintiff should therefore be awarded all 100 

minutes per month as allotted by the August 2012 IEP. Across seven 

months, this equals 700 minutes of compensatory Occupational 

Therapy, or about twelve hours. Goal 13 was also one of two annual 

goals relating to Listening Comprehension. Thus, one-half of the 100 

weekly minutes of instruction would be fifty minutes per week or ten 

minutes per day. Ten minutes per day for seven months at twenty days 

per month equates to 1,400 minutes or about twenty-three hours. 

Plaintiff is thus awarded twenty-three hours of Special Education 

Services and twelve hours of Occupational Therapy based on Goal 13. 

 Goal 3 is the only annual goal related to the Special Education Service 

of Math. For this service, the August 2012 IEP allotted 180 minutes per 

week, or thirty-six minutes per day. Thirty-six minutes per day for seven 

months with twenty days a month is 5,040 minutes or eighty-four hours. 

Consequently, Plaintiff is awarded eighty-four hours of Special 

Education Services based on Goal 3. 

 Goals 1 and 2 are the only annual goals correlating to Basic Reading 

Skills. The August 2012 IEP allotted Basic Reading Skills 200 minutes 

per week, or forty minutes per day. Forty minutes per day for seven 

months with twenty days a month is 5,600 minutes or about ninety-three 

hours. Accordingly, Plaintiff is awarded ninety-three hours of Special 

Education Services based on Goals 1 and 2. 

 Accordingly, the Court exercises its broad and “equitable” discretion to craft 

“appropriate” relief and awards Student 200 compensatory hours of Special Education 

Services and twelve compensatory hours of Occupational Therapy. See 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1415(i)(2)(C); Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 

(9th Cir. 1994) (noting that a district court’s charge to “fashion appropriate relief” is 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 23 of 30
- 24 - 

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 

“equitable” in nature). 

C. Procedural Timeline 

Plaintiff’s last three contentions of error concern the ALJ’s management of the 

four due process complaints. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred when she 

issued her decision on August 4, 2014, which is 124 days after the final due process 

hearing on April 2, 2014. (Doc. 32 at 3, 9–11). Similarly, Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ 

erred by issuing her decision 388 days after the first due process complaint was filed and 

by waiting to decide the first two complaints until after a hearing regarding the third and 

fourth complaints. (Id.) 

 In response, District contends that the ALJ properly consolidated the four 

complaints and appropriately requested additional time to issue her written decision after 

the April 2, 2014 hearing. (Doc. 33 at 10). District further argues that “Plaintiff can point 

to no harm or prejudice to the student’s program, as the issues presented concerned the 

student’s program for a prior school year.” (Id. at 10–11). 

 1. Legal Standard 

 The IDEA’s procedural safeguards are designed to achieve its substantive 

objectives and are thus a critical component of the statute. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205–

06 (“Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures . . . 

as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive standard.”). 

Generally, a public agency must ensure that a decision is issued within seventy-five days 

of a party’s request for a due process hearing. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)–(c), 300.515(a). 

Although a hearing officer may grant specific extensions of time at the request of either 

party, 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c), an extension beyond the seventy-five day period may 

constitute a denial of a FAPE, see, e.g., Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 277 F. Supp. 2d 

71, 79 (D.D.C. 2003) (“[T]he failure to provide a written determination in a timely 

manner after requests for an IEP meeting or a hearing have been made constitutes the 

denial of a free appropriate public education as required by the IDEA.” (citing Walker v. 

Dist. of Columbia, 157 F. Supp. 2d 11, 31 (D.D.C. 2009)). 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 24 of 30
- 25 - 

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 

 A procedural violation generally does not constitute the denial of a FAPE unless 

the procedural inadequacy: “(I) impeded the child’s right to a free appropriate public 

education; (II) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the 

decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to 

the parents’ child; or (III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” 20 U.S.C. 

§ 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see, e.g., N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary Sch. Dist., 541 F.3d 1202, 1208 

(9th Cir. 2008) (“Not every procedural violation . . . is sufficient to support a finding that 

the child in question was denied a FAPE” (quoting Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 892)). 

Ultimately, whether a procedural violation of the IDEA results in a denial of FAPE turns 

on whether the “violation affected the substantive rights of the parent or child.” L.M., 556 

F.3d at 909. 

 Although the Court is unaware of any Ninth Circuit case law specifically 

analyzing the delay of a due process determination under § 300.515(a), several district 

courts within the circuit have reviewed similar procedural violation claims. In Dep’t of 

Educ. v. T.G., the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii held that a 

school district’s “failure to provide a resolution session, convene a due process hearing, 

and issue [an] administrative decision within the timelines established by § 300.510 and 

§ 300.515 violated [the student’s] substantive rights.” 2011 WL 816808, at *9 (D. Haw. 

Feb. 28, 2011). In E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District, the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California suggested that, while a failure to 

hold a due process hearing may rise to a denial of a FAPE, the issuance of an 

administrative IDEA decision beyond § 300.515(a)’s deadline alone did not constitute a 

per se denial. 2006 WL 3507926, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2006). Finally, in Miller v. 

Monroe Sch. Dist., the United States District Court for the District of Washington found 

that a school district denied a student a FAPE when the ALJ’s decision was rendered 142 

days after the decision was due, the student’s education was “in flux” during the interim 

period, and the record was unclear whether the student was in an appropriate placement 

during the pendency of the case. 2015 WL 5478149, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 17, 2015). 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 25 of 30
- 26 - 

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. Analysis 

 Here, Plaintiff filed his first due process complaint on July 12, 2013, see (Doc. 1-

1), and requested a hearing on July 15, 2013, see (IRR 1). Generally, it was the District’s 

responsibility to ensure that a decision resolving Plaintiff’s complaint was issued within 

seventy-five days. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)–(c), 300.515(a). However, after a hearing 

for the first complaint was scheduled, Plaintiff filed a second due process complaint on 

September 3, 2013. (Doc. 1-1 at 28). The ALJ consolidated the two complaints, extended 

the timeline, and held a three-day due process hearing regarding the two complaints in 

mid-November 2013. (IRR 102, 261–63).11 A few days after the hearing, Plaintiff filed a 

third due process complaint alleging that District failed to provide adequate special 

education services as set forth by the August 2012 IEP. (Doc. 1-1 at 49). Although 

neither party expressly requested consolidation of the complaints, the ALJ consolidated 

the three complaints, extended the timeline, and scheduled an additional hearing to hear 

evidence regarding the third complaint. (IRR 110).12 Before the pre-hearing conference 

for the third complaint, Plaintiff filed a fourth due process complaint on January 8, 2014, 

alleging that District’s PWNs for changes to the August 2012 IEP were defective. 

(Doc. 1-3 at 4). Because the four complaints contained similar issues, testimony, and 

evidence, the ALJ consolidated the complaints, extended the timeline of the case, and 

scheduled a hearing for April 2, 2014 as to issues raised in the third and fourth 

complaints. (IRR 112). After the April 2, 2014 occurred, the ALJ’s decision was due on 

approximately June 17, 2014. See (IRR 118). However, the ALJ requested two time 

 

11 Plaintiff does not claim that the ALJ erred by consolidating these complaints 

and in fact consented to the consolidation. See (IRR 39 at 3) (“[T]he Petitioner is in 

agreement with these matters being consolidated as requested by Respondent’s motion.”). 

12 In response to the ALJ’s consolidation order, District filed a motion for 

reconsideration stating that it “believes that there is no reason to consolidate matters.” 

(IRR 67). In response to District’s reconsideration motion, Plaintiff argued that he “feels 

that the Tribunal’s decision to consolidate the matters best serves both parties in the 

interest of justice.” (IRR 68) (emphasis added). Ultimately, the ALJ denied District’s 

motion for reconsideration and proceeded with the complaints in consolidated format. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 26 of 30
- 27 - 

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 

extensions to issue her decision, see (id.; IRR 120), which she issued on August 4, 2014, 

see (IRR 260). 

 The Court does not find that the ALJ erred by consolidating the four due process 

complaints. Plaintiff consented to the first two consolidations and the third and fourth 

complaints involved the same core issues and evidence as the first complaint, namely, 

information related to the August 2012 IEP. Thus, the only procedural concern is the four 

month delay from April 2, 2013, the date of the final hearing, to August 4, 2013, when 

the ALJ rendered her decision. 

 District contends that it was appropriate for the ALJ to request two time 

extensions. (Doc. 33 at 10–11). The regulation District relies on for this argument, 

however, merely permits a hearing officer to extend a decision deadline “at the request of

either party.” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c) (emphasis added). Here, the ALJ herself

requested both time extensions and stated that “[a] simple email agreeing to the request 

by either party to the OAH will suffice to grant the extension.” (IRR 118, 120). The 

regulation does not permit a hearing officer to disregard the procedural guidelines at her 

own discretion—which is what the ALJ did here. Thus, the ALJ violated the IDEA’s 

procedural guidelines by issuing her decision more than four months after the final due 

process hearing and seven months from the date Plaintiff filed his fourth complaint.13 

 Despite the Court’s misgivings about the four month delay it took the ALJ to 

render her decision after the final due process hearing, the procedural violation was not a 

per se denial of a FAPE and Plaintiff has not shown that the delay negatively impacted a 

substantive right of Student or Parents—which is required for a procedural violation to 

constitute a denial of a FAPE, see L.M., 556 F.3d at 909. The consolidated complaints 

concerned allegations of improper implementation of a prior school year’s IEP, and 

Plaintiff does not present evidence that Student was denied special education services 

13 Although it could be argued that District moved for the time extensions by 

responding to the ALJ’s requests, that would not change the outcome here. A school 

district’s repeated requests for time extensions can constitute a procedural violation. See 

Miller, 2015 WL 5478149, at *3. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 27 of 30
- 28 - 

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 

during the pendency of the administrative proceedings or during this appeal.14 Thus, the 

ALJ’s delay was not a denial of a FAPE because the delay did not “result in the loss of 

educational opportunity, or seriously infringe the parents’ opportunity to participate in the 

IEP formulation process.” L.M., 556 F.3d at 909; see R.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 15 F. 

Supp. 3d 421, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (holding that “[e]ven if the tardiness of the [state 

agency] decision constituted a procedural violation . . . that procedural violation did not 

result in the denial of a FAPE” because “the late issuance of the [state agency] Decision 

could have no impact on the substantive recommendations of the IEP or the parent’s 

ability to participate in the IEP process”). 

IV. Attorneys’ Fees 

Plaintiff requests an award of attorneys’ fees for both the administrative 

proceeding and the action before this Court. (Doc. 1 at 14). In response, District asks for 

an award of its attorneys’ fees incurred during this appeal. (Doc. 12 at 16). 

 Regarding attorneys’ fees, the IDEA provides as follows: 

(3) Jurisdiction of district courts; attorneys’ fees 

. . . . 

(B) Award of attorneys’ fees 

(i) In general 

In any action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in 

its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the 

costs— 

 

14 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s second due process complaint was filed on 

September 3, 2013 and concerned parental participation in the creation of Student’s IEP 

for the 2013–2014 academic year. Had the ALJ determined that Parents were not given 

an appropriate opportunity to participate in the IEP development, then the ALJ’s delay in 

issuing her decision may have constituted a denial of a FAPE because parental 

participation is a statutory requirement of the IDEA. However, the ALJ determined that 

Parents were allowed an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the creation of the 

IEP, (IRR 260 at 26), and Plaintiff does not argue that this was error, see (Doc. 32 at 2–

3). Thus, the delay of the ALJ’s decision did not violate a substantive right of Parents. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 28 of 30
- 29 - 

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 

(I) to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a 

disability; 

(II) to a prevailing party who is a State educational agency or 

local educational agency against the attorney of a parent who 

files a complaint or subsequent cause of action that is frivolous, 

unreasonable, or without foundation, or against the attorney of 

a parent who continued to litigate after the litigation clearly 

became frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation; or 

(III) to a prevailing State educational agency or local 

educational agency against the attorney of a parent, or against 

the parent, if the parent’s complaint or subsequent cause of 

action was presented for any improper purpose, such as to 

harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase 

the cost of litigation. 

20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3). Thus, a “prevailing party” may bring an action seeking an award 

of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in obtaining affirmative relief, where liability was 

established outside of the district court action itself, such as in an administrative 

proceeding. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i); see Lucht v. Molalla River Sch. Dist., 225 F.3d 1023, 

1026 (9th Cir. 2000). 

 Plaintiff has not presented any evidence—nor does the record suggest—that he 

hired an attorney during the administrative proceedings or for his appeal before this 

Court. Thus, because Plaintiff is litigating pro se, the IDEA’s attorneys’ fees provision is 

inapplicable. See, e.g., Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(“Pro se plaintiffs . . . are not entitled to attorney’s fees.”); Stassart v. Lakeside Joint Sch. 

Dist., 2009 WL 3188244, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2009) (holding that a disabled 

child’s parents who proceeded pro se were not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees 

under the IDEA). 

 District’s request will also be denied because District has not shown that Plaintiff 

filed this complaint “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary 

delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation,” nor was District a “prevailing 

party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 29 of 30
- 30 - 

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 

V. Conclusion 

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that District must provide Student with a total of 200 hours of 

Special Education Services and twelve hours of Occupational Therapy as compensatory 

education. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless both parties otherwise agree, by no 

later than May 2, 2016, District and Plaintiff shall develop and schedule the 

implementation of an appropriate, mutually-agreeable academic program that will 

provide Student with the awarded compensatory education. 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice with each 

party bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred herein; and the Clerk of Court 

shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant as to the award of 

additional hours consistent with this Order. 

 Dated this 22nd day of March, 2016. 

Case 3:14-cv-08166-JAT Document 36 Filed 03/22/16 Page 30 of 30