FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
M .C., by and thr ough his guar dian ad lite m M .N.; M . N., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. ANT E L O PE V AL L E Y UNIO N H IG H SCH O O L DIST RICT , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-56344 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01452-DM G-M R W
O P INIO N

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 2, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : RE INH ARDT , K O Z INSKI , a nd W ARDL AW , C irc uit Judge s. K O Z I NSKI , C irc uit Judge : The Individua ls with Disa bilitie s Educ a tion Ac t (“ IDEA” ) gua rante e s
c hildre n with disa

bilitie s a fre e a ppropria t e public e duc a tion (“ FAPE” ). 20 U.S.C
. § 1400(d)(1)(A). W e c onside r the inte rpla y be twe e n the IDEA’ s proc e dura l a nd substa ntive sa fe gua

rds. 

# F IL ED
M AR 27 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSpa ge 2 B ACK G RO UND M .C
. suffe rs from

Norrie Dise a se , a ge ne tic disorde r that re nde rs him blind. He a lso ha s a

host of othe r de fic its tha

t c a use him de v e lopm e nta l de l ay s in a ll
a c a de m ic are a s. M .C .’ s m othe r, M .N., m e t with se ve ra l sc hool a dm inistra tors a nd instruc tors to discuss M .C .’ s e duc ationa l c ha lle nge s a nd dra ft a n individualiz e d
e duc a tiona l progra

m (“ IEP” ). At the c onc l usion of this m e e t ing, she signe d a

n IEP doc um e nt a

nd “ a uthoriz e [d] the goa ls a

nd se rvic e s but [did] not a gre e it provide s a FAPE.” M .N. the n

file d a due proc e ss c om

pla int a lle ging tha

t the Ante lope Va lle y Union High Sc hool Distric t (the “ Distric t ” ) c om m itte d proc e dura l an d substa ntive viola tions of theIDEA. The due proc e ss he aring took pla c e be fore an Adm inistra

tive La w Judge who de nie d a ll of M .C .’ s c la im s a nd the distric t c ourt
a ffirm e d.
DISCUSSIO N The IDEA’ s “ prim ary

goa l is ‘ to e nsure tha

t a ll c hildre n with disa

bilitie s have av a i la

ble to the m

a fre e a ppropria te public e duc a tion tha

t e m p ha siz e s spe c ia l
e duc a tion a

nd re late d se rvic e s . . . .’ ” J.L. v. M e rc e r Isla n d Sc h. Dist., 592 F.3d 938, 947 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting 20 U.S.C . § 1400(d)(1)(A)). A FAPE m ust bepa ge 3

“ ta ilore d to the unique ne e ds of the ha ndic a ppe d c h ild by m e ans of a

n

‘ i ndividua liz e d e duc a tiona l progra m ’ (IEP).” He ndric k Hudson C e nt. Sc h . Dist. B d. of Educ . v. R owle y , 458 U.S. 176, 181 (1982) (quoting 20 U.S.C . § 1401(18)). An IEP m ust c onta in, a

m ong othe r things, “ a sta

te m e nt of the c hild’ s pre se nt le ve ls of a c a de m ic a c hie ve m e nt,” “ a sta te m e nt of m e a sura

ble annua l goa ls” and “ a sta te m e nt of the spe c i a l e duc a tion a nd re late d se rvic e s . . . to beprovide d to the
c hild.” 20 U.S.C . § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i). W he n form ulat ing a n IEP, a sc hool distric t

“ m ust c om ply both proc e dura lly

and substa

ntive ly with theIDEA,” M
. L. v. Fe d. W ay Sc h. Dist., 394 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Ci r. 2005) (c iting Rowle y , 458 U.S. a t 206–07), so tha

t the proc e ss “ will be inform e d not only by the e xpe rtise of sc hool offic ia ls, but a lso by

the input of thec hild’ s pa re nts or gua

rdia ns,” Endre w F. v. Dougla s C ty . Sc h. Dist., 580 U.S. __, slip op. a t 11 (M ar. 22, 2017).
I. ST ANDARD O F RE V IE W Judic ia l re vie w in IDEA c a se s “ diffe rs substa ntia lly from judic ia l re vie w of othe r a ge nc y

a c tions, in which c ourts a re ge ne ra l ly

c o nfine d to the a d

m inistra tive
re c o rd and a

re he ld to a

highly de fe re ntia l sta

nda rd of re vie w .” Oja i Unifie d Sc h. Dist. v. Ja c kson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1471 (9th C ir. 1993). W e re vie w whe the r the sta te ha s provide d a

FAPE de novo. Union Sc h. Dist. v. Sm ith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1524 (9thpa ge 4

C ir. 1994). W e c an a c c ord som e de fe re nc e to the ALJ’ s fa c tua l findings, but only whe re the y

are “ thorough a

nd c are ful,” and “ the e xte nt of de fe re nc e to be give n is within our discre tion.” Id. (c ita tions omitte d). The distric t c ourt a c c orde d the ALJ’ s findings substa ntia l de fe re nc e be c a

use the A LJ “ que stione d witne sse s during a thre e -day he aring” and “ wrote a

21-pa ge opinion tha

t re vie we d the qua lific a tions of witne sse s a nd c ulle d re le va

nt de ta ils from the re c o rd.” B ut ne ithe r the duration of the he aring, nor theALJ’ s a c tive involve m e nt, nor thele ngth of theALJ’ s opinion c an e n sure tha t the ALJ wa s

“ thorough a

nd c are ful.” 1 J.W . e x re l. J.E.W
. v. Fre sno Unifie d Sc h. Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 440 (9th C ir. 2010). And, in this c a se , the ALJ wa s ne ithe r thorough nor
c are ful. As pla intiffs point out, the ALJ didn’ t

a ddre ss a l l issue s and disre ga rde d
som e of the e vide nc e pre se nte d at the he aring. Eve n the distric t c ourt re c ogniz e d

1 In Tim othy

O. v. Pa so R oble s Unifie d Sc h. Dist., for e xam ple , we re ve rse d a

le n gthy ALJ opinion with de

ta ile d findings tha

t we re unsupporte d by the re c ord. 822 F.3d 1105, 1117, 1123 (9th Ci r. 2016). The distric t c ourt ne ve rthe le ss ha d de fe rre d to the ALJ’ s findings, a ppa re ntly im pre sse d by

the le ngth a nd supe rfic ia l pla

usibility of the ALJ’ s opinion. Id. a t Dist. C t. Dkt. No. 78. Suc h blind de fe re nc e is not a p propria te . R a the r, the distric t

judge m u st a c tua lly e xam ine the re c ord to de te rm ine whe the r it supports the ALJ’ s opinion. Se e , e .g., J.G. e x re l . Jim e n e z v. B a ldwin Pa rk Unifie d Sc h . Dist., 78 F. Supp. 3d 1268, 1281–82 (C .D. C a l . 2015) (Olguin, J.) (ac c ording “ substa n tia lly le ss de fe re nc e ” whe re “ the ALJ’ s de c ision ignore [d] and m isc ha ra c te riz e [d] ke y e vide nc e ” ).pa ge 5

that the ALJ’ s a

na ly sis “ is not e ntire ly

satisfy ing.” Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt
e rre d in de fe rring to theALJ’ s findings.
II. PRO CE DURAL V IO L AT I O NS The IDEA c onta ins num e rous proc e dura l sa fe gua rds tha t a re de signe d to prote c t the rights of disa

ble d c hildre n a

nd the ir pa

re nts. Se e 20 U.S.C . § 1415. The se sa fe gua

rds a re a c e ntra l fe a ture of the IDEA proc e ss, not a m e re
a fte rthought: “ C ongre ss pla c e d e ve ry bit a s m uc h e m pha sis upon c om

plia nc e with proc e d ure s giving pa

re nts a n d gua rdia n s a la rge m e a sure of pa

rtic ipation a

t e ve ry sta ge of the a dm inistra

tive proc e ss a s it did upon the m e a sure m e nt of the re sulting IEP a ga inst a

substa ntive sta nda rd.” R owle y , 458 U.S. a

t 205. B e c a

use disa ble d
c hildre n a nd the ir pa

re n t s a re ge ne ra lly

not re pre se nte d by

c ounse l during theIEP proc e s s, proc e dura l e rrors at tha t sta ge are pa

rtic u la rly like ly to be pre judic ia l a nd
c a use the loss of e duc a tiona l be ne fits. The re fore , c om

plia nc e with theIDEA’ s proc e dura l sa fe g ua rds “ i s e sse ntia l to e n suring tha

t e ve ry e ligiblec hild re c e ive s a

FAPE, a nd those proc e dure s whic h provide for m e an ingful pa re nt pa rtic ipation a

re pa rtic u la rly im porta nt.” Am anda

J. v. C la rk C ty . Sc h. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 891 (9th Cir. 2001). “ Proc e dura l viola tions that inte rfe re with pa

re nta l pa rtic ipation in the

IEP form ulation proc e ss unde rm inepa ge 6

the v e ry e sse nc e of the IDEA.” Id. at 892. Pla intiffs a lle ge tha

t the Distric t viola

te d the IDEA by

(1) fa iling to
a de quate ly

doc um e nt the se rvic e s provide d by a te a c he r of the visua lly

im pa ire d (“ TVI” ), (2) fa iling to spe c ify the a ssistivete c hnology

(“ AT” ) de vic e s provide d
and (3) fa iling to file

a re sponse to the due proc e ss c om pla int.
A. Failur e to Ade quate ly Doc um e nt T V I Se r vic e s Pla intiffs c la im

tha t the Distric t didn’ t

provide a “ ‘ writte n re c ord of
re a s ona ble e xpe c tations’ to hold the Distric t a c c ounta

b le for the provision of vision
se rvic e s to M .C .” (quoting Am anda J., 267 F.3d a

t 891). A brie f history of the Distric t’ s shifting offe r of TVI se rvic e s is ne c e ssa ry : The IEP doc um e nt signe d by M .N. a nd the Distric t inc lude d a n offe r of 240 m inute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r m onth. Ac c ording to the

Distric t, it re a liz e d a

we e k la te r this wa s a

m ista ke . B ut the Distric t did nothing to notify M .N. M ore tha

n a m onth la te r, the Distric t purporte d to unila te ra lly am e nd the IEP by

c ha nging theoffe r of TVI se rvic e s to 240 minute s pe r we e k. The Distric t

didn’ t se nd M
. N. a

c opy of the re vise d

IEP or othe rwise notify he r of this c ha

n ge . In fa c t, she didn’ t le arn of it until the first da y of the due proc e s s he aring, a

m onth la te r. M o re ove r, at the he aring, Distric t witne sse s te stifie d tha

t the Distric t offe re d

M .C . 300 m inute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r we e k.pa ge 7

Pla intiffs c la im

tha t the Distric t’ s fa ilure to a c c urate ly doc um e nt the offe r of TVI se rvic e s de nie d M .C . a FAPE by pre c luding M .N. from

m e aningfully pa rtic i pating in the

IEP proc e ss. B e fore disc ussing them e rits of this c l a im we
m ust a d dre ss the Distric t ’ s argum e n t tha t the c la im

is wa ive d.
1. The distric t judge re c ogniz e d tha t pla intiffs’ due proc e ss c om p la int

“ argua bly e nc om p a sse d Pla intiffs’ argum e nt tha t the provision of TVI servic e s wa s ina d e quate .” The judge ne ve rthe le ss found tha t pla intiffs “ wa ive d a

ny argum e nt that the Distric t’ s fa ilure to spe c ify the fre q ue nc y of TVI se rvic e s in the August 2, 2012 IEP re sulte d in a

n a c tua l de nia l of a

n e duc ationa l be ne fit to M .C .” be c a use the d ue proc e ss c om

p la int wa s supe rse de d by

the ALJ’ s re sta

t e m e nt of issue s, whic h om itte d the a de qua c y of TVI se rvic e s . The distric t judge he ld tha t pla intiffs wa ive d the issue by fa iling to obje c t topa ge 8

this omission. 2 B ut pla intiffs we re n’ t a ware tha t the Distric t ha d unila

te ra lly
c ha nge d the IEP until a fte r the ALJ ha d re s tate d the issue s , so the y c ould ha rdly have ra ise d tha

t a s a proc e dura l viola

tion. And it turns out tha t the am e ndm e nt didn’ t e ve n provide an a c c urate sta te m e nt of the se rvic e s tha t M .C . wa s offe re d. Distric t witne sse s la

te r te s tifie d tha

t the Distric t inte nde d to offe r M .C
. 300 m inute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r we e k. The distric t judge purporte d to unde rsta nd the diffic u lt position tha t pla i ntiffs we re in due to this se que nc e of e ve nts but still found tha t “ the re [wa s] no indic a tion in the re c ord tha t Pla intiffs e ve r sought during the a d m inistra t ive he aring to a m e nd the issue s to be a ddre sse d to inc lude the Distric t’ s fa i lure to provideM .C
. with a de q uate TVI se rvic e s.” B ut we ge ne ra lly tre a t issue s a s if the y

we re ra ise d in the c om pla i nt if the y

are trie d by

c onse n t . R

ule 15 of the Fe de ra l R

ule s of C ivil Proc e d ure provide s tha

t a n issue “ trie d by

the pa rtie s’ e xpre ss or im

plie d c onse nt . .

2 It is a

ppa re n tly c om m on pra c tic e in IDEA c a se s is for ALJs to re sta te and re orga

niz e the issue s pre se nte d by the pa rtie s. Se e J.W ., 626 F.3d a t 442; Ford e x re l. Ford v. Long B e a c h Unifie d Sc h. Dist., 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (9th Ci r. 2002). W e que stion the wisdom of suc h a proc e dure whe re the pa

re nts a re re pre se nte d by

c ounse l and the c om

pla i nt sta te s the issue s inte lligibly , a s wa s the c a se he re . A pa

rty bringing a due proc e ss c o m pla int is e n title d to fra

m e the issue s it wishe s to pre se nt a

nd should not be

put in the diffic ult position of c ontra dic ting the p re siding offic ia l who will soon be the trie r of fa c t. In suc h c irc um sta nc e s, fa ilure to obje c t will not be de e m e d a

wa ive r of any c la im

fa i rly e nc om pa sse d in the c om pla i nt.pa ge 9

. m u st be tre ate d in a ll re spe c ts a s if ra ise d in the ple a d ings.” Fe d. R . C iv. P. 15(b)(2); se e 6A C ha

rle s Ala n Wright & Arthur R . M ille r, Fe de ra l Pra c tic e and Proc e d ure § 1491 (3d e d.). W

h ile we have n ’ t pre viously re c ogniz e d this pra c tic e in IDEA c a se s, it’ s ofte n be e n a pplie d in a va

rie ty of othe r a ge nc y a djudic a tions: be fore the IR S, Ly se k v. C .I.R ., 583 F.2d 1088, 1091–92 (9th C ir. 1978), the De pa rtm e nt of La

bor, 20 C
. F.R . § 901.40; Pierc e C ounty v. U.S. e x re l. De p’ t of La bor, 699 F.2d 1001, 1004 (9th C ir. 1983), a n d the Pa te nt a

n d Tra de m ark Offic e , US PTO Stip. § 507.03. W e se e no re a s on IDEA c a se s should betre a te d diffe re ntly
. B oth side s pre se n te d e xte nsive e v ide nc e re g arding the Distric t’ s offe r of TVI
se rvic e s. M ultiplewitne sse s te stifie d a s to the initia l offe r of 240 m inute s pe r
m onth, theDistric t’ s purporte d se c re t a m e ndm e nt of 240 minute s pe r we e k, a nd the Distric t’ s a c tua l offe r of 300 m inute s pe r we e k a s pre se nte d at the he a ring. The Distric t’ s pre se ntation of e vide nc e on this point vitia te d any wa i ve r on M .N.’ s pa rt. Ac c ordingly , we hold tha t pla intiffs’ c la im

tha t the Distric t c o m

m itte d a proc e dura l viola tion of theIDEA by

fa iling to a de quate ly

doc um e nt its offe r of TVI se rvic e spa ge 10

isn’ t wa ive d. 3
2. The IEP is a

“ form a l, writte n offe r [that] c re a te s a c le ar re c o rd tha

t will do m uc h to e l im inate trouble s om e fa c t ua l dispute s . . . a

b out whe n pla c e m e nts
we re offe re d, wha

t pla c e m e nts we re offe re d , a nd wha t a dditiona l e duc at ion
a ssista nc e wa s offe re d to supple m e nt a pla c e m e nt, if a

ny .” Union Sc h . Dist., 15 F.3d at 1526. TheIEP m ust spe c ify

“ the antic ipate d fre que nc y , loc ation, a nd duration of [e duc a tion] se rvic e s.” 20 U.S.C § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VII). Suc h “ a form a l, spe c i fic offe r from a sc hool distric t will gre a tly a ssist pa re nts in

‘ p re se nt[ing] c om

pla ints with re spe c t to a

ny m a tte r re lating to the

. . . e duc ationa l pla c e m e nt of the c hild.’ ” Union Sc h. Dist., 15 F.3d a t 1526 (quoting 20 U.S.C . § 1415(b)(1)(E)). The distric t judge a g re e d with theALJ’ s finding “t hat the Se pte m

be r 17, 2012 Am e ndm e nt m e re l y c o rre c te d an uninte ntiona l e rror in the August 2, 2012 IEP.” W e fa il to se e how this c an be so. An IEP is a c ontra c t. It is signe d by

the
c hild’ s pa re nts a nd the sc hool’ s re pre se ntative s, a nd thus e m

bodie s a binding

3 The Distric t a lso m ake s a se pa ra te wa ive r argum e nt: It c l a im s tha t pla i ntiffs wa ive d the ir obje c tion to the a dm ission of the

am e ndm e n t into e v ide nc e . While pla intiffs did waive the ir obje c tion to the a d m issibility

of the am e ndm e nt, for the re a sons de sc ribe d a bove , se e supra

at 7–10, thewa ive r doe s not e xte nd to its le ga l signific anc e .pa ge 11

c om m itm e nt. It a l so provide s notic e to both pa rtie s a s to wha

t se rvic e s will be provide d to the stude nt during the pe riod c ove re d

by the IEP. The sc hool distric t is not e ntitle d to m ake unila te ra l c ha nge s to a n IEP doc um e n t a

ny m ore tha n m ay any othe r party

to a c ontra c t. If the Distric t disc o v e re d tha t the IEP did not re fle c t its unde rsta nding of the pa

rtie s’ a g re e m e nt, it wa s re quire d to notify M
. N. a nd se e k he r c onse nt for a

ny am e ndm e nt. Se e 20 U.S.C . § 1414(d)(3)(D), (F) (disc ussing
am e ndm e nts to theIEP). Abse nt suc h c onse nt, the Distric t wa s bound by the IEP
a s writte n unle ss it sought to re -ope n the IEP proc e s s a nd propose d a

diffe re nt IEP. B e c a use the Distric t did ne ithe r of the se things, the IEP a c tua lly

in forc e at the t im e of the he aring wa s tha t signe d by the pa rtie s, not tha

t pre se nte d by

the Distric t a s the am e nde d IEP. Allowing the Distric t to c ha nge the IEP unila

te ra lly unde rm ine s its func tion of giving notic e of the se rvic e s the sc hool distric t ha s
a gre e d to provideand m e a suring thestude nt’ s progre ss towa rd the goa ls outline d in the IEP. M ore o ve r, a

ny suc h unila

te ra l a m e ndm e nt is a

pe r se proc e d

ura l viola tion of theIDEA be c a

use it vitia

te s the pa re nts’ right to pa

rtic ipate at e ve rypa ge 12

ste p of the IEP dra fting proc e ss. 4 Fina lly , we m

ust e xpre ss our disa

pprova l of the Distric t ’ s c onduc t with
re spe c t to this issue . The Distric t disc ove re d what it be lie ve d wa s a

m ista ke in the IEP just a we e k a fte r it wa s signe d, y e t fa ile d to bring this proble m to M .N.’ s
a tte ntion until we e ks la

te r, on the first da

y of the due proc e s s he aring. Eve n the n, its la wy e rs didn’ t ide ntify

the purporte d am e ndm e nt but ra t he r burie d it in a doc um e nt produc tion, le aving it to pla intiffs’ c ounse l to stum

ble upon it. Ha d the Distric t ra ise d the issue im m e diate ly upon disc ove ring the suspe c te d e rror, it’ s
e ntire l y possibletha

t M .N. would ha

v e found the am ount of TVI se rvic e s to be
satisfa c tory . Pla intiffs m ight ha ve avoide d hiring a

la wy e r and ta

king thec a se to a due proc e ss he aring— saving a ttorne y s’ fe e s on both side s a nd pe rha ps disruption to M
. C .’ s e duc a tion. W e find no justific a tion in the re c o rd for the Distric t’ s fa ilure to be forthright on this point a n d the Distric t ha s offe re d none in its brie f or whe n

4 The Distric t’ s purporte d am e ndm e nt wa s a lso im prope r for a

se pa ra te re a s on: The Distric t pre se nte d no e vide nc e supporting its c la im tha t the p artie s a gre e d to 240 minute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r we e k whe n the IEP wa s dra fte d . Inde e d, it is unc le ar how the Distric t c am e up with this figure give n tha t its witne s se s at the he aring te s tifie d tha t M .C . wa s a c tua lly

provide d 300 m inute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r we e k. Ne ve rthe le ss, the ALJ a nd the distric t c ourt a c c e pte d this a s true . Howe v e r, a

pa rty ’ s m e re a lle gations a

re not proof.pa ge 13

que stione d a

bout it a t ora l a rgum e nt. 5 B e c a use the Distric t de nie d M .N. a n opportunity

to pa rtic ipate in the IEP dra fting proc e ss by

unila te ra lly re vising the IEP, and be c a use the IEP a s initia lly dra fte d didn’ t provide M .N. with a

n a c c urat e offe r of the TVI se rvic e s provide d to M .C ., the Distric t c om

m itte d two proc e dura l viola tions of the IDEA. Union Sc h. Dist., 15 F.3d a

t 1526. Thedistric t c ourt ne v e rthe le s s found tha t M .C . wa sn’ t de nie d a FAPE, re a s oning tha

t “ [a ] proc e d

ura l viola tion de nie s a

c h ild a FAPE whe n the viola

tion se riously

infringe [s] the pa

re nts’ opportunity

to pa rtic ipate in the IEP form a tion proc e ss.” (e m pha sis in origina

l) (inte rna l quota

tion a nd c i tation
om i tte d). B ut, a s e xpla ine d a bove , M .N. wa s de nie d a

n opportunity to pa

rtic ipate in the IEP dra fting proc e ss. M o re ove r, in e na c ting the IDEA, C ongre ss wa s a s
c onc e rne d with pa

re nta l pa rtic ipation in the e nforc e m e nt of the IEP a s it wa s in its form a tion. Se e R owle y , 458 U.S. a t 205 (disc ussing C ongre ss’ s inte nt to “ giv[e ] pa re nts a n d gua rdia ns a la rge m e a sure of pa

rtic i pation a

t e ve ry sta ge of the
a dm inistra

tive proc e ss” (e m

pha sis a dde d)). Unde r the IDEA, pa re nta l pa rtic ipation doe sn’ t e n d whe n

the pa re nt signs the

IEP. Pare n ts m

u st be a ble to use the IEP to

5 On re m and, the distric t c ourt sha l l de te rm ine whe the r this c ourse of c onduc t wa s a

de libe ra te atte m

pt to m isle a d M .N. or m e re bungling on the pa rt of the D istric t a

nd its la wy e rs. If the distric t c ourt de te rm ine s tha t the form e r is the c a se , it sha l l im

pose a sa nc tion suffic ie ntly

se ve re to de te r any

future m isc o nduc t.pa ge 14

m onitor a nd e nforc e the se rvic e s tha t the i r c hild is to re c e ive . Whe n a pa re nt is
una ware of the se rvic e s offe re d to the stude nt— and, the re fore , c an’ t m onitor how the s e se rvic e s a

re provide d— a

FAPE ha s be e n

de nie d , whe the r or not thepa re nt ha d am ple opportunity to pa

rtic ipate in the form

ulation of theIEP. Whe the r, and to wha

t e xte nt, M .C . wa s pre

judic e d by

the se proc e dura l im proprie tie s is a m ore diffic ult que stion. Assum ing tha t M
. C . wa s re c e iving 300
m inute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r we e k, a s the Distric t a ppa re ntly inte nde d to offe r, M .C . m ay not ha ve suffe re d a

ny substa ntive ha rm . M .N. ne v e rthe le ss suffe re d proc e d ura l ha rm by not be ing a

pprise d of the a c tua l sta

tus of these rvic e s be ing provide d, c a

using he r to inc ur le ga l fe e s in a tte m pting to prote c t tha

t right. B e c a use any TVI se rvic e s provide d be y o nd wha t wa s spe c ifie d in the writte n IEP would ha ve be e n gratuitous, M .N. c ould not be sure that the Distric t would
c ontinue to providethe m . W ith only 240 m inute s pe r m o nth (a bout a n hour a
we e k) spe c ifie d

in the IEP, the Distric t wa s e ntitle d to c ut ba c k the se se rvic e s to that le ve l. M .N. wa s a

m ply justifie d in se e king thea id of c ounse l to c la rify the
am ount of se rvic e s provide d. Inc urring unne c e ssa ry le g a l fe e s is, of c ourse , a form of pre judic e tha t de n ie s a stude nt a nd his pa re nts a n e duc a tiona l be ne fit. Se e Pare nts on B e ha lf of Stude nt v. Julia n C ha rte r Sc h., OAH No. 2012100933, a t 2 (Jan. 17, 2013) (orde r de ny ing m otion to dism iss). The fa c t tha

t the Distric t c ouldpa ge 15

have av oide d the ha

rm by prom ptly notify ing M .N. tha

t it wa s a gre e i ng to provide far m ore se rvic e s tha

n spe c ifie d in the IEP only m ake s m a tte rs worse . B . Failur e to Ide ntify the AT De vic e s Pr ovide d Whe n a stude nt re quire s “ a

pa rtic u la r de vic e or se rvic e ” C a l ifornia re quire s that the IEP “ inc lude a sta

t e m e n t to tha

t e ffe c t.” C a l. Educ . C ode § 56341.1(b)(5), (c ). M .C .’ s IEP initia lly indic a te d tha t M
. C . didn’ t re quire AT de vic e s or se rvic e s. The Distric t c onc e de d tha t this wa s e rrone ous a

nd issue d a

n am e ndm e nt tha

t
c ha nge d the c he c kbox for AT de vic e s from “ no” to “ y e s.” B ut ne ithe r the IEP nor the a m e ndm e nt spe c ifie d the de vic e s tha t M .C . re quire d. The distric t judge re c ogniz e d tha t “ the la ngua ge of [se c tion 56341.1]
re quire s the Distric t to ide n tify the pa rtic ula r ty pe s of AT de vic e s a

n d se rvic e s to be provide d to M .C .” B ut the judge found tha t this proc e dura l viola

tion didn’ t

“ se riously infringe [] M .N.’ s opportunity to pa rtic ipate in the IEP form

ulation proc e s s.” As we ’ ve m a de c l e ar, howe ve r, pa re nts m ust be a ble to pa rtic ipate in both theform

ulation a nd e nforc e m e nt of the IEP. Se e supra at 13–14. Eve n if M .N. wa s a

ble to pa rtic ipate in the IEP’ s form ulation, theDistric t’ s fa ilure to ide n tify the AT de vic e s tha

t M .C . re quire d

re nde re d the IEP use le ss a s a blue print for e n forc e m e n t.pa ge 16

The distric t judge note d that the IEP te am disc usse d “ at le a st som e of the AT
se rvic e s a nd e quipm e nt to be provide d to M .C
. ” at the IEP m e e ting. B ut a disc ussion doe s not a

m ount to a

n offe r. M .N. c ould forc e the Distric t to provide only those se rvic e s a

n d de vic e s liste d in the IEP, not thosedisc usse d at the IEP
m e e ting but le ft out of theIEP doc um e n t. Se e Union Sc h. Dist., 15 F.3d a t 1526 (re quiring a

“ form a l, writte n

offe r” ). Inde e d, ite m s disc usse d at the IEP m e e ting but not inc lude d in the IEP doc um e nt c ould be de e m e d to ha ve be e n om i tte d on purpose . Nor wa s this a

c a se whe re “ e ve ry one involve d in the individualiz e d
e duc a tion te am

— inc luding [thestude nt’ s] pa re nts— kne wof the am o unts [of
se rvic e s] ” tha

t we re offe re d. J.L., 592 F.3d a t 953. M
. N. te stifie d at the due proc e s s he aring tha

t she didn’ t know whic h AT de vic e s we re offe re d to M .C
. M .C .’ s TVI se rvic e s provide r te stifie d tha t M
. C . re c e ive d a

la ptop, a B ook Port, softwa re de ve lope d for the visua lly im pa i re d , a sc re e n re a ding progra m , a ta lking
c a lc ulat or and a

n Ey e -Pa l Solo. B ut M .N. wa s only aw are that M .C
. re c e ive d a la ptop, bra ille m a c hine , bra ille c a le nda r an d a B ook Port. M .N. a lso te stifie d tha t the l a ptop didn’ t

have the softwa

re tha t M .C . ne e de d, but shedidn’ t know whic h softwa re wa s m issing. B e c a

use the IEP didn’ t spe c ify whic h AT de v ic e s we re be ing offe re d, M .N. ha d no wa y of c onfirm ing whe the r the y we re a c tua lly

be ingpa ge 17

provide d to M .C . The Distric t’ s fa ilure to spe c ify the AT de vic e s tha

t we re provide d to M .C . thus infringe d M
. N.’ s opportunity to pa rtic ipate in the IEP proc e s s a nd de nie d M .C . a

FAPE. Id. at 953.
C. Failur e to Re spond to the Com plaint The IDEA re quire s a sc hool distric t to re spond to a pa

re nt’ s due proc e ss
c om pla i nt within 10 da

y s . 20 U.S.C . § 1415(c )(2)(B )(i)(I). The Distric t fa ile d to do this a nd pla i ntiffs a

rgue tha t this viola

te d the IDEA. To be c le ar, the Distric t didn’ t just miss a

de a dline : It fa ile d to e ve r re spond to the c o m pla int. The distric t
c ourt found tha

t the fa ilure to re spond didn’ t infringe M
. N.’ s opportunity to pa rtic i pate in the IEP form

ulation proc e ss a

nd, the re fore , wa sn’ t a

de nia l of a FAPE. B ut this m

isse s the m ark. The Distric t’ s fa ilure to re spond m ay not ha ve de nie d pla intiffs a

FAPE but it still viola

t e d the IDEA a

n d due proc e ss. An a nswe r to a

c om pla int se rve s a

n im porta nt dua l purpose : It give s notic e of the issue s in dispute

and binds the

answe ring pa

rty to a position. Se e , e .g., Unite d State s v. All Asse ts He ld a t B ank Julius B a e r & C o ., 959 F. Supp. 2d 81, 116 n.21 (D.D.C . 2013) (noting tha t “ one func t ion of a

n a nswe r” is to ide ntify

“ points of disa

gre e m e nt” ); Lope z v. U.S. Fide l ity & Gua ranty C o., 18 F.R
. D. 59, 61 (D. Ala ska

1955) (e xpla ining tha

t the purpose of rule s gove rning a n s we rs to apa ge 18

c om pla i nt “ is to pre ve nt surprise ” ). Fa ilure to file an a nswe r puts theopposing pa rty at a se rious disa dva

nta ge in pre pa

ring for the he aring, a s it m ust gue ss wha

t de fe nse s the opposing pa

rty will ra ise . The proble m

is pa rtic ula rly se v e re in IDEA
c a se s be c a

use the re is no disc ove ry . Whe n a sc hool distric t fa ils to file a tim e l y answe r, the ALJ m

ust not go forward with thehe aring. R a the r, it m ust orde r a

re s ponse and shift thec ost of the de la y to the sc hool distric t, re ga rdle ss of who is ultim

a te l y the pre va iling pa

rty . 6 W e re m and for a

de te rm ination of thepre

judic e M .N. suffe re d a s a re sult of the Distric t’ s fa ilure to re spond a nd the award of a

ppropria te c o m pe nsation the re for. 7
III. SUB ST ANT IV E V IO L AT IO NS In orde r for M .C . to ha

ve re c e ive d a

FAPE, the IEP m

u st ha v e “ (1)
a ddre s se [d] [his] unique ne e ds, (2) provide [d] a de quate support se rvic e s so [M .C .]
c an ta ke a dva nta ge of the e duc ationa l opportunitie s , a nd (3) [be e n] in a c c ord with

6 Eve n if a

m otion to c om

pe l a re sponse isn’ t brought, the ALJ should ra ise the issue sua

sponte at the pre -he aring c onfe re nc e . This is im pe ra tive in IDEA c a se s whe re pa

re n ts ofte n proc e e d

without the

a id of c ounse l a

nd m ay not be aware tha t the IDEA re quire s a

sc hool distric t to re spond to the c o m pla int within 10 da y s. Se e 20 U.S.C . § 1415(c )(2)(B )(i)(I). 7 W e do not a ddre ss the re ve rse situa t ion whe re the due proc e ss c a se is brought by

the sc hool distric t a

nd the pa re nts fa i l to file a

re sponse . Diffe re nt c onside ra tions m ay a

pply in suc h c irc um sta

nc e s, e s pe c ia lly if the pa

re nts a re pro se . W e le ave that situa

tion for a c a se tha t pre se n ts the issue
.pa ge 19

the i ndividua liz e d e duc a tion progra m . ” C a pistra no Unifie d Sc h. Dist. v. W arte nbe rg, 59 F.3d 884, 893 (9th C ir. 1995) (c iting Rowle y , 458 U.S. a t 188–89).
1. Pla intiffs a

rgue tha t the Distric t

de nie d M
. C . a FAPE by

providing him with le ss tha

n 300 m i nute s of TVI se rvic e s pe r we e k. The Distric t doe s n’ t
a ddre s s the substa

nc e of pla intiffs’ argum e nt, a rguing tha

t the issue wa s wa ive d. For the re a s ons e xpla ine d a bove , pla intiffs ha

v e n ’ t wa ive d this issue . Se e supra at 7–10. B oth the ALJ a

nd distric t judge pla c e d the burde n on M .N. to show tha t the
se rvic e s provide d to M .C . we re ina de quate . Norm a lly , the pa rty a lle ging a viola tion of theIDEA be ars the burde n of showing tha t the se rvic e s re c e ive d
am ounte d to a

de nia l of a

FAPE. Se e Sc ha ffe r e x re l. Sc ha ffe r v. W e a st, 546 U.S. 49, 57–58 (2005). B ut he re the re wa s a proc e dura l viola

tion tha t de p rive d M .N. of the k nowle dge of what se rvic e s we re be ing offe re d to M .C . If pa re nts don’ t

know what se rvic e s a

re offe re d to the stude nt— i n kind or in dura tion—i t’ s im

possible for the m to a sse ss the substa ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of thosese rvic e s. In suc h
c irc um s ta nc e s , the burde n shifts to the sc hool distric t to show tha t the se rvic e s the stude nt a c tua lly re c e ive d we re substa ntive ly re a sona ble . W e re m and so theDistric t
c an ha v e an opportunity to m a

k e suc h a showing be fore the distric t c o urt.pa ge 20

2. Pla intiffs a lso c la im tha t the Distric t de n ie d

M .C . a FAPE by fa iling to de ve lop m e a sura

ble goa ls in a ll a

re a s of ne e d, inc luding “ the are a s of life skills,
re side ntia l tra

ve l, a n d busine ss tra

ve l .” Additionally , pla intiffs a rgue tha t the Distric t fa ile d to providea de quate orie ntation a nd m obility

se rvic e s , a s we ll a s
a de quate soc ia l skills instruction. Thedistric t c ourt found tha t pla intiffs fa ile d to
m e e t the ir burde n of showing tha t the IEP wa sn’ t “ re a sona bly c a lc ulate d to c onfe r [M
. C .] with a

m e aningful be ne fit.” J.W ., 626 F.3d a t 439. In doing so, it re lie d on the Supre m e C ourt’ s c om m e nt in R owle y

tha t, by “ an ‘ a ppropria te ’ e duc at ion, it is
c le ar that [C o ngre ss] did not m e an a pote ntia l-m a xim iz ing e d

uc a tion.” 458 U.S. a

t 197 n.21. B ut R owle y

“ d[id] not a

tte m pt to e s ta blish a ny one te st for de te rm ining the a de qua c y

of e duc ationa l be ne fits.” Id. at 202. R e c e ntly , the Supre m e C ourt
c la rifie d R owle y

and provide d a

m ore pre c ise sta

nda rd for e va luating whe the r a
sc hool distric t ha s c o m

plie d substa

ntive ly with theIDEA: “ To m e e t its substa ntive obliga tion unde r the IDEA, a

sc hool m ust offe r an IEP re a sona

bly c a l c ulate d to
e na ble a c hild to m ake progre ss a

ppropria te in light of the

c hild’ s c irc um sta

nc e s.” Endre w F., slip op. a

t 11. In othe r words, the sc h ool m u st im ple m e n t a n IEP that is
re a s ona bly c a lc ulate d to re m e diate and, if a p propria te , a c c om m odate the c hild’ s disa bilitie s so tha

t the c hild c a

n “ m ake progre ss in thege n e ra l e d uc a tion
c urric u lum ,” id. a

t 3 (c i tation omitte d), c o m m e nsurate with his non-disa ble d pe e rs,pa ge 21

taking into a c c ount thec hild’ s pote ntia l. W e re m and so thedistric t c ourt c an
c onside r pla intiffs’ c l a im s in light of this ne w guida nc e from the Supre m e C ourt.
IV . PRE V A IL I NGPART Y The IDEA provide s tha

t a “ c ourt, in its disc

re t ion, m ay

award re a sona

ble
a ttorne y s’ fe e s a s pa

rt of the c osts to the

pa re nt or gua

rdia n of a c hild or y outh with
a disa bility who is a

pre va iling pa

rty .” 20 U.S.C
. § 1415(i)(3)(B )(i)(I). A pare nt
ne e d not suc c e e d on e ve ry issue in orde r to be a

pre va iling pa

rty . Park v. Ana

he im Union High Sc h. Dist., 464 F.3d 1025, 1035 (9th Ci r. 2006). R a the r, pa re nts a re pre v a i ling pa

rtie s if the y “ suc c e e d[] on a ny signific ant issuein litiga

t ion whic h
a c hie ve s som e of the be ne fit [the y ] sought in bringing the suit.” Id. at 1034 (e m pha sis in origina

l) (c ita tion omitte d). M .N. is thepre va i ling pa rty in this
a ppe a l a nd is the re fore e ntitle d to a ttorne y s’ fe e s . Se e Ash v. La ke Oswe go Sc h. Dist., 980 F.2d 585, 590 (1992).

* * * The Distric t’ s fa i l ure to a de quate ly doc um e nt the TVI se rvic e s a nd AT de vic e s offe re d

to M .C . viola

te d the IDEA a

n d de nie d M .C . a

FAPE. The se proc e d ura l viola tions deprive d M .N. of he r right to pa rtic ipat e in the IEP proc e ss
and m a de it im

possiblefor he r to e nforc e the IEP and e va luat e whe the r the se rvic e spa ge 22

M .C . re c e ive d we re a de quate . At the ve ry le a st, pla intiffs a

re e ntitle d to ha

ve the Distric t dra ft a

prope r IEP and re c e ive c om pe n s a tory e duc at ion to “

pla c e [M .C .] in the s am e position [he ] would ha ve oc c upie d but for thesc hool distric t’ s viola tions of [the ] IDEA.” R .P. e x re l. C .P. v. Pre sc ott Unifie d Sc h. Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tions omitte d). W e re m and the c a se to the distric t c ourt for proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this opinion.

RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.