Case Name: M.D., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, S.D.; S.D.; L.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, a state agency, Defendant, and Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-12
Citations: 332 F. App'x 368
Docket Number: No. 07-56827
Parties: M.D., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, S.D.; S.D.; L.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, a state agency, Defendant, and Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 368–368

Head Matter:
M.D., a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, S.D.; S.D.; L.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, a state agency, Defendant, and Saddleback Valley Unified School District, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-56827.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed May 12, 2009.
Bonnie Z. Yates, Esq., Law Offices of Bonnie Z. Yates, Inc., Culver City, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
S. Dan Harbottle, Esq., Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL, District Judge.
The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for * * the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
M.D. appeals the district court's denial of his partial summary judgment motion. We affirm.
We review the district court's summary judgment order de novo. Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability Survivorship Plan, 266 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir.2001). Neither 20 U.S.C. § 1415 nor Cal.Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3087 required, nor was there an agreement between the parties, that the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") incorporate the terms of a settlement pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) into its order of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.