Case Name: R.T.D., by and through his parents; R.D.; M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-28
Citations: 539 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 12-16191
Parties: R.T.D., by and through his parents; R.D.; M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 774–775

Head Matter:
R.T.D., by and through his parents; R.D.; M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-16191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 12, 2013.
Filed Aug. 28, 2013.
Jennifer Visitación Patricio, Paul D. Alston, Esquire, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jason H. Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Kris S. Murakami, Esquire, Holly T. Shikada, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGHI-Office of -the HI Attorney General, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This appeal presents the same issues decided today by our opinion in E.R.K. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education, No. 12-16063, 728 F.3d 982, 2013 WL 4530914 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013) (slip op.), to wit: (1) Whether the district court erred in granting judgment to the Department of Education on R.T.D.'s claim that Hawaii Revised Statutes § 302A-1134(c) violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and (2) Whether the district court erred in granting judgment to the Department of Education on R.T.D.'s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.
For the reasons stated in E.R.K., the judgment is.
REVERSED as to issue 1, and AFFIRMED as to issue 2. Costs on appeal shall be awarded to Plaintiffs-Appellants.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.