Case Name: H.W. et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-23
Citations: 487 F. App'x 350
Docket Number: No. 11-55595
Parties: H.W. et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 350–351

Head Matter:
H.W. et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-55595.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 7, 2012.
Filed Aug. 23, 2012.
Timothy A. Adams, Drew Massey, Adams & Associates, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
John W. Allen, Gibeaut, Mahan & Bris-coe, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee.
Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
We remand this case to the district court in light of Payne v. Peninsula School District, 653 F.3d 863 (9th Cir.2011), a decision issued after the district court entered its order. We held in Payne that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's exhaustion requirement, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i), is not jurisdictional and set forth a new relief-based approach, as opposed to an injury-based approach, for determining whether a claim is subject to the exhaustion requirement. In conformity with Payne, the Defendant may file an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion for failure to exhaust in place of its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs shall be afforded the opportunity to respond to Defendant's motion.
REMANDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.