N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT LINDA PEDR

AZA, individua

lly and on be ha lf of he r son, M .P., a nd FR ANC ISC O PEDR A ZA, individually and on be ha lf of his son, M .P.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. ALAM EDA UNIFIED SC HOOL DISTR IC T; e t a l.,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 12-15995 D.C . No. 4:05-c v-04977-C W M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia C la udia W ilke n, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 24, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JAN 26 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Appe lla nts a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of the ir c la im s unde r the Individua ls with Disa

bilitie s Educ ation Ac t (“ IDEA” ), the dism issa l of the ir bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im s, a

nd the distric t c ourt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe l le e s. W e a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing Appe lla nts’ 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la im , be c a

use a pla intiff c a

nnot pre dic ate a

§ 1983 c la im

on a n a lle ge d viola

tion of the IDEA or § 504 of the R e ha bilita tion Ac t of 1973. Se eBlanc hard v . Morton Sc h. Dist. , 509 F.3d 936, 937-38 (9th C i r. 2007); Vinson v . Thomas , 288 F.3d 1145, 1156 (9th C ir. 2002). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onsolida

ting Appe l la

nts’ re late d c a se s. A distric t c ourt ha s broa d disc re tion to c onsolida te c a se s pe nding within its distric

t, a nd Appe lla

nts ha ve fa i le d to de m onstra

te tha t the c a se s did not sha re a c om m o n que s tion of la

w or fa c t. Se ePie rc ev . C ty . of Orange , 526 F.3d 1190, 1203 (9th C ir. 2008); se ealso Fe d. R . C iv. P. 42(a). 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing M .P.’ s individual c la im s for fa ilure to ha

v e c ounse l. A non-a

ttorne y pa re nt c annot a c t

a s le ga l c ounse l for he r m inor c hild. Se eJ

ohns v . C ty . of San Die

go , 114 F.3d 874, 876-77 (9th C ir. 1997). 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting the sc hool distric t’ s m otion for judgm e nt on the ple a dings in c a se no. 07-5989. An a ppe a l from

the C a lifornia 2Offic e of Adm inistra t ive He arings m

ust be file d within ninety

da y s. 20 U.S.C . § 1415(i)(2)(B ); 34 C .F.R . § 300.516(b); C a l. Educ . C ode § 56505(k). The de a dline for Appe lla

nts to filethe ir a

ppe a l wa s Se p te m

be r 17, 2007. Appe lla

nts file d the ir a ppe a l ne arly

two m o nths la

te r on Nove m

be r 14, 2007. 5. The distric t c ourt did not err in dismissing the C a lifornia

De pa rtm e nt of Educ ation (“ C D E” ) for la c k of jurisdic tion. Thedistric t c ourt c o nc lude d tha t the re wa s no priva

te right of a c tion a g a inst theC DE with re ga rd to thec om

pla int re solution proc e dure . Although the distric t c ourt a

nd the pa rtie s did not ha

ve the be ne fit of M.M. v . Lafay e tteSc hool Distric t , 767 F.3d 842 (9th C ir. 2014), tha t opinion supports the

distric t c ourt’ s de c ision. In Lafay e tte , we c onc lude d tha t

“ § 1415 is a

m andate for a

sta te to e sta blish proc e dura l sa fe gua

rds” and did not c re ate a priva te right of a c tion. Id. at 860. “ [I] nde e d § 1415(f) spe c ific a lly re quire s c om

pla ints to be h e ard in a

n im pa rtia l due proc e ss he aring a nd the n provide s a

n e xpre ss right of a

ppe a l for re vie w of a

ny a dm inistra

tive de c ision.” Id. In this c a se , a

he aring wa s not he ld, ra

the r the pa

rtie s e nte re d into a

writte n se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt a fte r m e diation. The sta tute doe s not provide

for C DE re vie w of a

se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, se e 20 U.S.C . § 1415(g), but ra the r provide s tha

t the w ritte n se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt is “ e nforc e a b le in a ny State c ourt of c om

pe te nt jurisdic tion or in a

distric t c ourt of theUnite d State s.” § 1415(e )(2)(F)(iii), se e 3also § 1415(f)(1)(B )(iii)(II). The sta tute doe s not provide

for C DE e nforc e m e nt of the s e ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt. Furthe r, e ve n if the C DE we re re quire d to e nforc e the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt, thedistric t c ourt c orre c t ly found tha

t Appe lla nts fa ile d to pre s e nt e v ide nc e tha

t the sc hool distric t bre a c h e d the c ontra c t. The re fore , a ny c la im tha t the C DE did not enforc e the Se ttle m e nt Agre e m e nt would befutile . 6. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Appe lla nts’ m otion to dism

iss the sc hool distric t’ s c ounte rc la im s, whe n wa s ba se d on the the o ry

tha t the sc hool distric t fa ile d to e xha

ust its a d m inistra t ive re m e die s . “ The IDEA’ s e xha ustion re quire m e nt a

pplie s to c la i m s only

to thee xte nt tha

t the re lie f a c tua lly

sought by the p la intiff c ould ha

ve be e n provide d by

the IDEA.” Pay nev . Pe ninsula Sc h. Dist. , 653 F.3d 863, 874 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ), ov e rrule d on othe r

grounds in Albino v . Bac a , 747 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba nc ). The sc hool distric t sought re lie f unde r a

bre a c h of c ontra c t the o ry , not re lie f unde r the IDEA. 7. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting the sc hool distric t’ s m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt. The re wa s no ge n uine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t. C ontra ry to Appe l la nts’ argum e nt, the distric t c ourt did not deny Appe lla nts theright to oppose the d istric t c o urt’ s m o tion, a s Appe lla nts ha d e qua l a c c e s s to the a dm inistra tive re c o rd and file d a

n opposition. Furthe

r, the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Appe l la nts’ bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im . The re c ord doe s not support Appe lla nts’ 4c onte ntion tha t the sc hool distric t bre a c he d the c ontra c t, but ra the r that a ny la c k of pe rform a nc e by the sc hool distric t wa s a

re sult of Appe lla

nts’ la c k of c oope ration in working with the

sc hool distric t. 8. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onstruing Appe lla

nts’ postsum m ary judgm e nt m otions a s m otions for re c onside ration. S e eN u n e s v . Ashc roft , 375 F.3d 805, 807-08 (9th C ir. 2004); N.D. C a l. C iv. Loc a l R . 7-9. 9. Appe lla

nts’ re que st for sta

y of se rvic e s pe nding a

ppe a l is de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

5