The Honor able Timothy C. St ance u, of the United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. 09 -24 14 -cv R.R., D.R. o n beh alf

of M.R. v. Scarsdale Union Free School District

1 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS 2 

### FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 3 4 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R 5 6 R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E P R ECED ENTI A L EFFEC T. CI TATI O N TO A SUM M A R Y O R D ER 7 FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED AN D I S GO V ERN ED BY FED ERA L R U LE O F AP PELLA TE 8 PR OCEDUR E 3 2 . 1 AND T HI S C OU R T ’ S L OC A L R U L E 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN C I T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R I N A D OCUM E NT 9 F IL E D W IT H T H IS C O U R T , A P A R T Y M U S T C IT E E IT H E R T H E F E D E R A L A P P E N D IX O R A N E L E C T R O N IC 10 DAT ABAS E ( W I T H THE NOTA T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY ORDE R M US T S E RVE 11 A CO PY O F I T O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. 12 13 At a stat ed ter m of the United S tate s Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, held at 14 the Daniel P atric k Moynih an United S tate s Courthouse, 500 P earl Str eet , in the City of New 15 Yo r k, o n t he 18 dayof F e br uar y, two th ous and t e n. th 16 17 PRES ENT: 18 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 19 GERARD E. LYNCH, 20 Circuit Judges , 21 TI MOTHY C. STANCEU, 22 Judge

. * 23

__________________________________________ 24 25 R.R., D.R. on behalf of M.R. 26 27 Plaintif fs-Appellant s, 28 29 v. 09-2414-c v 30 31 Sc ars da le Un ion F re e Sc ho ol D istri c t, 32 33 Defendant- Appellee

. 34

__________________________________________ 352 1 FOR APPEL LANTS: GARY S. MAYERSON (TRACEY SPENCER W AL SH, on the 2 brief) , May erson & Associates, N ew Yor k, NY 3 4 FOR APPEL L EE: ERI C L . GORDON, K eane & B eane PC, W hite Plains, NY 5 6 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HERE B Y O RDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 7 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED

. 8 Plaintiffs-Appellants R .R. and D.R. on behalf of their da ug hter M.R. (“A

ppellants”) a

ppeal 9 from a Ma

y 14, 2009 order

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York 10 (B arba

ra S. Jones, J. ) g rantingthe Def endant- Appellee Scarsda le Unio n Fr ee School District’s 11 (“D istrict”) motion for summary judgme nt a nd denying the Appellants’ motion for modified de novo 12 re vie w. We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th the fa c ts, pr oc e dura l hi sto ry , a nd iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 13 I. Backg ro und 14 M.R., a student with le arningdisabiliti es, beg an attendingDistrict schools in 2000, the y ear 15 she ente red kinde rg arte n. At issue in this case ar e two Individualiz ed Education Programs (“ I EPs”) 16 de ve lop e d f

or M. R. p ur su ant t o th e Ind ivi du a ls w ithDi sa bil iti e s E du c atio n A c t ( “ I DE A” ), 20 U. S.C. 17 § 1400 et seq

. The I EP f or M.R.’s 2005- 06 school y ear (“2005 I EP”) was finalized at the second of 18 two meeting s of M.R.’s Commi ttee on Specia l Education (“ CSE”), which c onvened on Ma y 4 and 19 J une 14, 2005. B y letter dated J uly 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , Appellants expressed their disag ree ment with the 20 proposals in the I EP, infor med the District’s Dir ector of Specia l Education, Dr. Mic hael Me ndelson, 21 that M.R. was enrolled in the private Wi ndwar d School for the 2005- 06 school y ear , and notified Dr

. 22 Mendelson that they would be see king r eimbursement for M .R.’s private school tuiti on. M.R. beg an 23 attendingclasses at Wi ndwar d in 2005, her fif th-g rade y ear . 24 The CS E convene d ag ain on J une 7, 2006 for M.R.’s annual r eview a nd to develop an I EP 25 for the 2006- 07 school y ear . The resulting I EP (“2006 I EP”) re commended pla ceme nt in a regular 26 six th-g rade classroom, suppl em ented with support in t he school’s Resour ce Room four times per3 1 we e k. B y

e ma il t o D r. Me nd e lso n d ate d July 18 , 2 00 6, Ap pe lla

nts re je c te d th e 20 06 I EP. M. R. 2 rema ined in the Windward School for the 2006-07 school year . 3 On August 9, 2006, Appellants, throug h counsel, f i l ed a re q uest for a

due proc ess hea

ring 4 to adjudicate A p pellants’ cla ims for tuition reimbursement for the 2005-06 and 2006- 07 school 5 y ear s. Wi th reg ard to the 2005 I EP, Appellants made numer ous alleg ations about the proc edure by 6 wh ic h th e I EP w a s d e ve lop e d at th e June 20 05 CSE and the su bs tanc e of

the I EP its e lf

. App e lla nts 7 alleg ed that the 2006 I EP “repe ated a number” of the proble ms they identified wi t h re gard to the 8 2005 I EP. A

ppellants also asked the Independe nt H ear ing Offic er (“I HO”) to r ecuse himself based 9 on his fo rm e r e mpl oy me nt and a lle g e d bia s in fa vo r of sc ho ol dis tr ic ts. Th e I HO re fu se d to re c us e 10 himself, and the he aringbeg an on Oc t o b er 2 3 , 2 0 06 and conc luded on Marc h 7, 2007 afte r seve n 11 da

y s o f t e sti mony . O n M ay 3, 20 07 , the I HO iss ue d a wr itt e n d e c isi on

fi nd ingthat, d

ue to 12 su

bs tantive and

pr oc e dura l de fi c ie nc ie s in the I EPs , th e Di str ic t de nie d M .R. a fr e e a pp ro pr iate 1 3 publi c e d

u c ati o n( “ F A PE ” ) a s r e qu ir e d b y th e I D E Af

o r b o th s c h o o l ye ar s an d

th at t h e Wi n dw ard 14 Sc ho ol w a s an a pp ro pr iate pla c e me nt f

or M. R. A c c or ding ly , th e I HO awa rd e d App e lla

nts the ir 15 reque sted reimburse ment for the 2005-06 school year . Howeve r, with reg ard to the 2006- 07 school 16 y ear , the I HO dete rmined that equitable co n s i d erations weig hing in f avor of the District re quired 17 dismiss al of the tuition reimburseme nt claim for that year . 18 Ap pe lla nts a pp e a le d the I HO ’s de c isi on wi th re g ard to the 20 06 -0 7 sch oo l y e ar t o th e State 19 Review Of

fice r (“ SRO”). The District cross-a ppeale d from the I HO’s determination that both the 20 2005 and 2006 I EPs suffere d from def iciencie s, that the Appellants demo n s t ra t ed that W indward 2 1 S ch o o l wa s an ap p ro p ri at e p l a c e m e n t fo r M

. R

. , an d th atequ i t ab l e c o n s i d er at i o n s d i d n o twe i gh 22 a g a ins t th e Ap pe lla nts wi th r e g ard

to r e imb ur sin gtui tio n f

or the 20 05 -06 scho ol ye ar. In th e ir4 1 response to the District’s cross-a ppeal, Appe llants asked for the SRO’s rec usal. After denying the 2 re qu e st fo r re c us a l, the SRO re vie we d the re c or d and de te rm ine d that bo th t he 20 05 and

20 06 I EPs 3 met the proc edura l and substantive re quirements of the I DEA. Thus, the SRO c oncluded that, under 4 applicable law, Appe llants were not entitled to tuit ion reimburseme nt for either school y ear . 5 On J anuar y 11, 2008, Appellants appe aled the de cision of the SRO to the dis t ri ct court by 6 moving f

or modified de novo revie w of the SRO’s de cision. In a memora ndum submit ted in support 7 of the motion, Appellants ar gued that the district c ourt should ove rturn the SRO’s de termination that 8 the 2005 and 2006 I EPs wer e procedura lly and substantively

adequate and a

rgued in support of the 9 I HO’s de termination that Windward was an appropr iate plac ement for M.R. Appellants urg ed the 10 distr i ct co u rt to overturn the I HO’s f inding that e quitable consider ations weig hing in f avor of the 11 Di str ic t pr e c lud e d re imb ur se me nt of tui tio n fo r the 20 06 -0 7 sc ho ol y e ar. F ina lly , in a rep ly 12 memorandum re sponding to the D istrict’s memorandum of law i n opposition t o Appellants’ motion, 13 Appellants conte nded that an a ffidavit of D r. Mende lson submit ted by the District (the “Mendelson 14 aff

idavit”) should not be admitted into the re cord. I n a M ay 15, 2009 decision, the district cour t 15 aff

irmed t he S RO’s deter

mination denying r eimbursement f or the two school year s in question. R.R. 16 e

xre l. M .R . v . S c ar sd aleUn ion Fr e e Sc h. Di

st. , 615 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)

. 17 On appe al, Appellants make two principal arguments in their opening brief. First, they argue 18 that the SRO was biased a nd, there fore , the I HO’s de cision should be reinstated. Sec ond, they argue 19 that the Mende lson affidavit was inappropr iately admitted into e vidence by the district court. F or 20 the re a so ns that f oll ow , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

. 21 II. Discussion 22 We review de novo the district c ourt’s aw ard of summary judgme nt in an I DEA c ase. A. C. 23 ex rel

. M.C . v. Bd . o f E du c . o f Th e Cha

pp aq ua Ce nt. Sc h. Di

st. , 5 5 3 F

. 3 d

1 6 5 , 1 7 1 ( 2 d

Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ).5 1 The district cour t was re quired to “e ng ag e in an independent review of the administrative rec ord and 2 make a deter

mination based on a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e.” Gagliardo v

. Arlington Cent. Sch. 3 Di

st. , 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks omitted). Fe dera l courts g ive “due 4 weig ht” to the state a dminist rative pr ocee dings. Id. at 113 (interna l quotation marks omitted). I f, as 5 here , the SRO’s decision “c onflicts with the ear lier decision of t he I HO, the I HO’s decision may be 6 aff

orded diminished weight.” A. C. ex re l. M .C. , 553 F.3d at 171 (internal quotation mar ks omitt ed). 7 “We def

er to the final decision of the state authorities, even wher e the r eviewingauthority disag ree s 8 with the hear ing of fice r.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). 9 Her e, Appe llants have c hosen to focus the ir appe al not on the merits of the state administrative 10 deci s i on but on the argument that the SRO was biased in fa vor of the sc hool district. However , as 11 Appellants fa iled to ma k e t h i s ar gu ment befor e the district cour t, the argument has bee n waived. 12 Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerne r , 416 F .3 d 109 , 1 14 (2 d Ci r. 20 05 ) ( “ [I ]t is a we ll- e sta bli sh e d g e ne ra l r

ule 13 that an appe llate cour t will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appea l.”). Bec ause the 14 waiver

rule is prudential, not jurisdictional, we ma y exercise our

discretion and ne verthe less consider 15 wa ive d ar gume nts “ wh e re ne c e ssa ry to av oid a

manif e st i nju sti c e or

wh e re the argume nt p re se nts a 16 question of law a nd there is no need for

additi o n al fa ct -finding .” Id. We decline to exerc ise such 17 discretion in the cir cumstance s of this case. 18 Appellants ar gue that, in fa ct , they did raise the issue of

the SRO’s alleg ed bias be fore the 19 district court, p o i n t i n g t o a footnote in their June 30, 2008 Memora ndum of L aw of

Modified De 20 Novo Re vie w. Al tho ugh thi s fo otn ote ra ise s a qu e sti on re g ard ingthe SRO ’s a lle g e d b ia s, it d oe s so 21 only

to expressly

disclaim any

argument based upon it, stating “[w]e do not ask this Court t o make 22 any

finding s about the SRO’s impartiality or integ rity .” (e mphasis in orig inal). Thus, eve n if we w ere 23 inclined to find a sing le footnote suff icient to pr eser

ve an ar gument on appea l, but see United States6 1 v. Svoboda , 347 F.3d 471, 480 (2d C ir. 2003) (“I t is well-e stablished in this Circuit that [w] e do not 2 c on sid e r a

n a rgume nt m e nti on e d o nly

in a fo otn ote to be a de qu ate ly ra ise d or pr e se rv e d for a pp e llate 3 revie w.” ( internal quotation ma rks omitted)), Appellants here raised the argument befor e the district 4 court only

to expressly

disclaim it. W e ther efor e conside r this argument waived. 5 Appellants additionally argue t h at t h e district cour t errone ously

admitted into evidence the 6 Mende l s on aff

idavit, which was not in the a dminist rative r ecor d. The I DEA spec ifies that, upon 7 fede ral c ourt revie w of a state administrative de cision, the court “ (i) shall re ceive the re cords of the 8 administrative proc eeding s; (ii) shall hear additional evidenc e at the r equest of a party ; and (iii) basing 9 its de c isi on

on the pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e , sha ll gra

nt s uc h r e lie f a s th e c ourt de te rm ine s is 10 appropr iate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2) (C). Appellants contend that the Mende lson affidavit was not 11 proper ly

admitted as “a dditional evidence ” bec ause D r. M endelson testified dur ing the administrative 12 pr oc e e din g s and his a ff ida vit wa s im pe rm iss ibl y

us e d to pr ov ide inf

or matio n th at he c ou ld n ot r e c a ll 13 at the hea

ring . The District c ontends, in c ontrast, that the Mende lson affidavit merely summarizes 14 his testimony

and is supported by

citations to the administrative rec ord. 15 Although this Court has not y et consider e d wh a t c o n s ti tu tes permissible “a dditional evidence ” 16 pursuant to Section 1415(i)( 2)(C), we need not r eac h the issue her e. Eve n wer e we t o assume that 17 the district court a dmitted this aff idavit errone ously , we would f ind that the err or wa s harmless. 18 Malek

v. Fe d. Ins. Co. , 994 F.2d 49, 55 ( 2d Cir. 1993) (explaining that this Court wil l reve rse upon 19 imp ro pe r a dmi ssi on of e vid e nc e on ly wh e n “ the imp ro pe r a dmi ssi on or e xclu sio n o f e vid e nc e a ff e c ts 20 ‘a substantial rig ht’ of one of the parties,” an inquiry that involves “asse ssment of the likelihood that 21 the er

ror a ffe cted the outc ome of the c ase” (quotingFe d. R. Evid. 103(a)) ). He re, the district court 22 did not purport to rely on the Mende lson a ff

i d av i t

. And our own re vie w o f t he re c or d s ho ws that, 23 even if the affidavit was im proper ly taken into acc ount, it did not “af fec t[ ] t he outcome of

the ca se.” 24 Id.7 1 Finally , Appellants expend one pa ra gra p h in their openingbrief on the contention that the 2 SRO “ ig no re d” the “ de ta ile d f a c t- fi nd ing s of th e I HO .” Ap pe lla nts do no t, h ow e ve r, po int to 3 specific instances in the SRO’s dec ision whe re the SRO ig nored the fac tual finding s of the I HO, and 4 our ow n re vie w re ve a ls non e . Ins te a d, re lying on su bs tanti a lly sim ila

r fa c ts as did

the I HO , th e SRO 5 dr e w d if

fe ri ngle g a l c on c lus ion s. We t he re fo re re

je c t th is a rgume nt. 6 In their re ply brief, A ppellants make va

riou s ar gu m en ts that go to the me rits of the SRO’s 7 decision. Howe ver, “ arguments not made in an a ppellant’s openingbrief a re w ai v ed ev en if the 8 appellant pur sued those ar guments in the district c ourt or raised them in a re ply brief.” JP Morgan 9 Chase Bank v . Altos Hornos de Mex ico, S.A. de C.V. , 4 1 2 F

. 3 d 4 1 8 , 4 2 8 ( 2 d C i r . 2 0 0 5 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, 10 Ap pe lla

nts have waive d th e se argume nts on a pp e a l. I f w e we re ne ve rt he le ss t o c on sid e r t

he se 11 arguments, we would reje ct t hem for substantially the same r easons a s those set forth in the district 12 court’s thorough and we ll-rea soned opinion. 13 We have c onsidered the rema inder of Appe llants’ claims and de termined them to be w ithout 14 me ri t. 1 5 F o r

th e f o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , th e j u d g m e n to f th e d i s tr i c tc o urti s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED

. 16 17 18 19 FOR THE COURT: 20 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 21 22