Opinion ID: 1272595
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: May 25, 2005 Summary Judgment Ruling.

Text: On March 12, 2004, the case was reassigned to Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California, on temporary assignment to the District of Hawaii. The Agency again moved for summary judgment, reasserting some arguments made earlier in its motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment and making one new argument: that the H. family's proffered evidence failed to show the deliberate indifference the court had ruled was required for a § 504 violation. In a motion for partial summary judgment filed the same day, the H. family argued that Judge Ezra's prior rulings governed as law of the case, and further maintained that they were entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability because the Agency failed to provide a FAPE and acted with deliberate indifference in doing so. Judge Real granted the Agency's motion for summary judgment and denied the H. family's motion. He held that there is no § 504 cause of action for violation of any affirmative right to a FAPE, reasoning that IDEA procedures remain the exclusive remedy for correcting problems within the terms of the act, and for deciding what is best suited to a free appropriate public education. Judge Real further held that (1) pursuant to Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001), the U.S. DOE's § 504 regulations can not be enforced through the right of action implied under § 504; and (2) a state's waiver of sovereign immunity under § 504 does not extend to claims for damages for failure to provide an IDEA FAPE. Finally Judge Real concluded that, even if the H. family had a valid § 504 cause of action, the state would prevail on the merits, because the [p]laintiffs do not present any evidence that they were intentionally discriminated against, `solely by reason of their disability.' The case was dismissed. The H. family appeals from this final judgment.