N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
G. M ., a m inor, by an d through his Gua rdia n a d lite m , Ke vin R . M arc he se , an individual, a

nd Ly ndi M arc he se , a

n individual; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. DR Y C R EEK JOINT ELEM ENTAR Y SC HOOL DISTRIC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-17242 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00944-GEB
GGH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia G a rland E. B urre ll, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
D EC 24 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.G.M . a nd his pa re n ts (“ G.M .” ) a

ppe a l a grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt to the Dry C re e k Joint Ele m e nta

ry Sc hool Distric t (the “ Distric t” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a n d a ffirm
. 1. The a dm inistra

tive la wjudge (“ A LJ” ) did not e rr in re fusing to ente r a de fa ult judgm e nt a ga inst theDistric t for fa iling to file a ple a ding re sponsiveto the pa re nts’ c om

pla int within 10 da

y s of se rvic e . The Individua ls with Disa bilitie s Educ a tion Im

prove m e nt Ac t (“ IDEA” ) only re quire d the Distric t to “ se nd to the pa re nt a re sponse ” to the c om

pla int. 20 U.S.C . § 1415(c )(2)(B ); 34 C .F.R
. § 300.508(e ). A due proc e ss he aring is there dre s s for a n unsa t isfa c tory re sponse . Se e 20 U.S.C . § 1415(f)(1)(B )(ii). 2. The ALJ’ s finding tha t G.M . wa s offe re d a fre e a ppropria te public
e duc a tion (“ FAPE” ) for the 2009-2010 sc hool y e ar wa s supporte d by the e v ide nc e . G.M
. wa s not de nie d a

ny e duc a tiona l be ne fits; he re m a ine d in his pre fe rre d
e duc a tiona l pla c e m e nt. S e e Doug C

. v . Haw . De

p’t of Educ

. , 720 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th C ir. 2013); A.M. e

x re l. Marshall v. Monrov i a Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 627 F.3d 773, 779 (9th C ir. 2010). 3. The ALJ prope rly

c onside re d the August 28, 2009 individua liz e d
e duc a tiona l progra

m (“ IEP” ) m e e ting whe n e va l uating whe the r G.M . wa s offe re d a FAPE. The pre he aring c onfe re nc e orde r file d six da y s be fore the he aring e xpre ssly 2provide d tha t the August 28 m e e ting would be a ddre sse d at the he aring. S e e20 U.S.C . § 1415(c )(2)(E)(i)(II)
. E ve n if the August 5, 2009 IEP m e e ting wa s proc e d ura lly de fic ie nt, the August 28, 2009 m e e ting c ure d the se de fic i e nc ie s. Se e Ms. S. e x re l. G. v

. Vashon Island Sch. Dist. , 337 F.3d 1115, 1136 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha

t de fe c tive pa

re nta l notic e for IEP m e e tings did not c a use a de nia l of FAPE in light of a

late r m e e ting), supe rse de d by statute on othe r grounds , 20 U.S.C . § 1414(d)(1)(B ). 4. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt to theDistric t on G.M
. ’ s c la im s unde r se c t ion 504 of the R e ha bilita tion Ac t of 1973, 29 U.S.C
. § 794(a ). G.M . fa ile d to pre se nt e vide nc e tha t the Distric t a c t e d with de libe ra te indiffe re nc e or tha

t he wa s de nie d a

ny e duc at iona l be ne fits. 1 Se e Duv all v

. C nty . of K itsap , 260 F.3d 1124, 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2001). 5. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t G.M .’ s sta

te la w c la i m s for m one y dam a ge s we re ba

rre d by the C a lifornia

Gove rnm e nt C la im s Ac t. S e e C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 945.4; K

arim-Panahi v . L.A. Polic e De p’t , 839 F.2d 621, 627 (9th C ir. 1988).

1 G. M .’ s 42 U .S.C
. § 1983 c la im a ga inst the C a lifornia De pa rtm e n t of Educ a tion for a l le ge d IDEA viola

tions is ba

rre d b y Blanc hard v . Morton Sc hool Distric t , 509 F.3d 934, 936 (9th C ir. 2007). 36. The ALJ did not c le arly e rr in a warding a ttorne y s’ fe e s to the Distric t. Se e C a l. Gov’ t C ode § 11455.30; 1 C a l. C ode R e gs. § 1040(a). 2 7. G.M .’ s re que st for judic ia l notic e of his 2011 a ppe a l is de nie d a s m oot be c a use doc um e nts re lating to tha t a ppe a l a re a l re a dy in the re c ord. H is re que st for judic ia l notic e of a

propose d stipula tion not file d in the a dm inistra tive proc e e dings is de nie d. Low ry

v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ Save in
unusua l c irc um sta

nc e s,” this c ourt c onside rs “ o nly the distric t c ourt re c o rd on
a ppe a l.” ). AFFIRM E D.

2 W e re

j e c t a ny atte m pt by G.M . to re -litiga

te the distric t c ourt’ s sta

y -put orde r, whic h wa s he l d m oot in l ight of G.M
. ’s prom otion to h igh sc hool in G.M. v . Dry C re e k J oint Ele me n tary Sc ho o l D is t r ic t , 458 Fe d. App’ x. 654 (9th C ir. 2011). Se e J oshua A. v . Roc k

lin Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 559 F.3d 1036, 1037 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ A m otion for s ta

y p ut func tions a s an ‘ a utom a tic ’ p r el i m i na

ry injunc tion.
. . .” ); Ranc he rs Ca t tle m e n Ac t ion Le gal Fund Unite d Stoc k

grow e rs of Am. v . USDA , 499 F .3 d 1108, 1114 (9th C ir. 2007) (finding that, whe n ruling o n a pre lim i n ar y injunc tion, “ [a ] ny of our c onc l usions on pure issue s o f la w . . . are binding” ). In light of our prior disposition, G.M .’ s re que st for j u d i ci al notic e of his c e rtific a te of prom otion from

the Distric t is m oot. 4