N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
G. M . a nd R . M ., a

m inor c hild by

and through he r m othe r G.M ., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. SADDLEB A C K

VALLEY UNIFIED SC HOOL DISTR IC T, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-56627 D.C . No. 8:11-c v-01449-DOC
M LG
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

16, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN a

nd WARDLAW , C irc u it Judge s, a n d SILVER , Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** Appe lla nts G.M
. (“ M othe r” ) and R .M . (“ Stude nt” ) a p pe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision, whic h a ffirm e d a n Adm inistra

tive Law Judge ’ s de te rm ination tha t 

# FIL ED
JUL 18 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. ** The Honora

ble R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.Sa ddle ba c k Va lle y Unifie d Sc hool Distric t (“ Sc hool Distric t ” ) did not viola te its

“ c h ild find” obliga

tion with re spe c t to Stude nt, nor did it fa il to provide

Stude nt with a Fre e an d Appropria

te Public Educ a tion (“ FAPE” ). In a ddition to ruling on the m e rits of pla intiffs’ c la im s , the distric t c o urt a lso solic ite d a re que st for a

n
award of attorne y s’ fe e s from the Sc hool Distric t ba se d on its c onc lusion tha t pla i ntiffs’ c la im s we re frivolous or pre se nte d for an im p rope r purpose . Though a c l ose and nove l que stion, thedistric t c ourt did not err in
c onc luding tha

t the Sc hool Distric t c o m

plie d with its c hild find duty

with re spe c t to Stude n t be c a

use it took ste

ps to “ ide ntif[y ] , loc a te [] , a nd e va luate [] ” Stude nt. C ompton Unifie

d Sc h. Dist. v . Addison , 598 F.3d 1181, 1183 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting 20 U.S.C . § 1412(a )(3)(A)). Nor did the distric t c ourt e rr whe n it c onc lude d tha t the Sc hool Distric t a lso
m e t its obliga

tion to provide

a FAPE to Stude n t. 20 U.S.C . § 1412(a )(1). The Sc hool Distric t dra fte d a

n individualiz e d e duc at ion pla n (“ IEP” ) “ re a sona

b ly
c a lc ulat e d to c onfe r an e duc a tiona l be ne fit on the c h ild.” J G v . Douglas C

nty . Sc h. Dist. , 552 F.3d 786, 801 (9th C ir. 2008). W hile the IEP m ay

not ha ve be e n pe rfe c t , it did “ t ake into a c c o unt wha t wa s, a n d wa s not, obje c t ive l y re a sona ble whe n the
sna p shot wa s ta

ke n, tha t is, a t the tim e the IEP wa s dra fte d.” A dams v . State of Ore gon , 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (9th C ir. 1999) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d).
2Howe v e r, the distric t c ourt’ s solic ita tion of a m otion for a

ttorne y s’ fe e s from the Sc hool Distric t on this re c ord wa s que stiona ble . C ongre ss a

m e nde d the IDEA in 2004 to allow pre va iling sc hool distric ts to obtai n attorne y s’ fe e s from the pla i ntiffs if the litiga

tion wa s “ frivolous, unre a sona b le , or without founda

tion,” or

“ pre se nte d for a

ny im prope r purpose , suc h

a s to ha ra ss, to c a use unne c e ssa

ry de la y , or to ne e dle ssly inc re a se the c ost of litiga tion.” 20 U.S.C
. § 1415(i)(3)(B )(i)(II), (III). The distric t c ourt’ s orde r m ake s c le ar that it solic ite d

“ a future m otion for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s from

[the ] Distric t” be c a

use it ha d a lre a dy
c onc lude d tha

t pla intiffs’ c la im s we re frivolous. The que stion of whe the r the Sc hool Distric t viola

te d its c hild find dutie s wa s c lose , a nd one of first im

pre ssion for our c irc uit, 1 e spe c ia lly give n tha t Stude nt’ s sc hool c ounse lor ha d be e n a dvise d

1 W e have not y e t a

rtic u l a te d a

te st for whe n

the c hild find obliga

tion is trigge re d. The pa

rtie s a n d the distric t c ourt re ly

upon a te st a rtic ulat e d by

a Ha wa ii distric t c o urt. Se e De

pt. of Educ ., Haw . v . C

a ri Rae S. , 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (D. Haw. 2001) (“ [T] h e c hild-find duty is trigge re d whe n the [distric t] ha s re a son to suspe c t a disa

bility , a nd re a son to suspe c t tha

t spe c ia l e duc a tion se rvic e s m ay be ne e de d to a ddre s s tha

t disa bility .” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). The Sixth and Third C irc uits ha

ve prom ulga t e d te sts tha

t diffe r signific antly

from the C

ari Rae sta nda rd. Se e D .K

. v . Abington Sc h. Dist. , 696 F.3d 233, 249 (3d C ir. 2012) (noting tha

t “ C hild Find doe s not de m and tha t sc hools c onduc t a

form a l e va luation of e ve ry struggling stude

nt” ); Bd. of Educ . of Fay e tteC nty ., K y . v . L.M. , 478 F.3d 307, 314 (6th C ir. 2007) (holding tha t the individual c la im ing a c hild find viola

tion m ust de m onstra

t e “ t hat sc h o ol offic ia ls ove rlooke d c le ar signs of disa bility and we re ne glige nt in fa iling to order te sting or tha t the re wa s no ra

tiona l justific a tion for not de c i ding to e va luat e ” ). 3of Stude nt’ s dia gnosis of “m a jor de pre ssive disorde r” a s of at le a s t Oc tobe r 15, 2009. The que stion of whe the r the Sc hool Distric t fa ile d to provide a

FAPE wa s,
a t a m inim um , le ga l ly

c o gniz a ble
. Se e R.P. e

x re l. C .P. v . Pre sc o tt Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 631 F.3d 1117, 1126 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ Lawy e rs would be im prope rly disc oura ge d from

ta king on potentia lly

m e ritorious IDEA c a se s if the y riske d be ing
sa ddle d with a

six-figure judgm e nt for bringing a suit whe re the y have a pla usible , though ultim

a te ly unsuc c e ssful, a

rgum e nt, a s he re . ” ). W e re m and in pa rt to the distric t c o urt so it m ay c o n side r whe the r it should ha ve solic ite d the re que st of
a ttorne y s’ fe e s from

the distric t. 2 Ea c h side sha ll be ar its own c osts. AFFIRM E D; RE M ANDE D .

2 Pla intiffs’ fa ile d to a

ppe a l the Nove m

be r 26, 2012 orde r granting the Sc hool Distric t’ s m otion for a ttorne y s’ fe e s, so we la c k jurisdic tion ove r the a c tua l am ount a warde d. 4