D K, et al v. Huntington Beach

Filing 920090130

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D. K., by and through his Guardian ad Litem Andrea Kumetz-Coleman; ANDREA KUMETZ-COLEMAN; STEVEN KUMETZ, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-55988 D.C. No. CV-05-00341-CJC ORDER

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 14, 2009--Pasadena, California Filed January 30, 2009 Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Stephen S. Trott and Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL William Lee Buus, Buus Kim Kuo & Tran APC, Newport Beach, California, for plaintiff-appellee Andrea KumetzColeman, as Guardian ad Litem. Andrea Kumetz-Coleman, Westminster, California, pro se. Steven Kumetz, Los Angeles, California, pro se.
1077

1078

D. K. v. HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH

Andrew V. Arczynski, Fullerton, California, and Caroline Zuk, Long Beach, California, for the defendant-appellant.

ORDER After we granted permission for this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the Supreme Court held in Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 127 S. Ct. 1994 (2007), that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., gives parents substantive rights that they may vindicate pro se. Because the IDEA rights of parents and children are generally coterminous, see Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 936-37 (9th Cir. 2007), the issue certified in this case, whether the parents may also represent their minor child's IDEA rights pro se, is not ripe. Unless and until the rights or interests of the parents diverge from those of the child, a ruling on the issue would be advisory. We therefore vacate the order granting permission for this appeal. Nickert v. Puget Sound Tug and Barge Co., 480 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1973). After Winkelman was decided, the continued burden, expense and delay from staying district court proceedings and pursuing this interlocutory appeal was wholly unwarranted. DISMISSED.

PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON REUTERS/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted © 2009 Thomson Reuters/West.