Case Name: P.J., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Denise JAKUBIAK; Denise Jakubiak; Matthew Jakubiak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; California Special Education Hearing Office, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-14
Citations: 248 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 05-56880
Parties: P.J., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Denise JAKUBIAK; Denise Jakubiak; Matthew Jakubiak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; California Special Education Hearing Office, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM , Senior District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 248
Pages: 774–775

Head Matter:
P.J., a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Denise JAKUBIAK; Denise Jakubiak; Matthew Jakubiak, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; California Special Education Hearing Office, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-56880.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2007.
Filed Aug. 14, 2007.
Tania L. Whiteleather, Esq., Law Offices of Tania L. Whiteleather, Lakewood, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Garrett Hines, Esq., McCune & Harber, Los Angeles, CA, Michael E. Hersher, Staff Counsel, Marsha A. Bedwell, Esq., California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CEDARBAUM , Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant P.J., a minor represented by his guardians ad litem, Denise and Matthew Jakubiak, challenges the district court's judgment in favor of the Pomona Unified School District (District) and the California Special Education Hearing Office (SEHO).
1. P.J. had notice of the hearing. PJ.'s parents acknowledged receiving the hearing notice, which advised them that the hearing would be continued from day-to-day until completed.
2. Denial of P.J.'s request for a continuance based on his counsel's scheduling conflicts did not violate due process. The student's parents waited until a week prior to the hearing to retain an attorney who was unable to attend the hearing due to scheduling conflicts. Neither Cal. Educ.Code § 56507(a) nor 34 C.F.R. § 300.511 govern this case, as they only address potential bases for a continuance.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.