Irvine Unified School District v. K. G. et al

Filing 76

AMENDED JUDGMENT by Judge James V. Selna, in favor of Irvine Unified School District, Orange County Department of Education, K. G. against California Department of Education Related to: Judgment 73 . (See document for details.) (rla)

-MLG Irvine Unified School District v. K. G. et al

Doc. 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

HARBOTTLE LAW GROUP S. Daniel Harbottle (State Bar No. 156442) [e-mail] Sara C. Young (State Bar No. 265665) [e-mail] 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1100 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 714.371.4485 Attorneys for Plaintiff Irvine Unified School District UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. K.G., an adult student, ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants, Case No. CV10-01431 JVS (ANx) AMENDED JUDGMENT Judge: Hearing: Time: Location: Hon. James V. Selna November 8, 2010 3:00 p.m. Ctrm. 10C

This action was heard by the Court on November 8, 2010, on the following Motions: · Plaintiff Irvine Unified School District's ("IUSD") Motion for Summary Judgment; · Defendant K.G., et al.'s Motion for Summary Judgment; · Defendant/Cross-Claimant Orange County Department of Education's ("OCDE") Motion for Summary Judgment; and · Defendant California Department of Education's ("CDE") Motion for Summary Judgment.
{1008092.1 }

-1AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

All parties appeared through counsel, as reflected by the record. The Court, having reviewed the Motions, the Consolidated Oppositions, and Consolidated Replies, and having heard argument and good cause appearing, hereby ENTERS JUDGMENT as follows: 1) 2) Judgment is entered in favor of OCDE and IUSD, in favor of K.G. as The Decision rendered by the administrative law judge following the

against CDE only, and against CDE; November 30, 2009 hearing of the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") in Consolidated Case Nos. 2009090943 and 2009100565 is hereby reversed, in part, with respect to its finding that CDE was not responsible for implementing and funding K.G.'s education in an out-of-state residential treatment center ("RTC") following his release from the Orange County Juvenile Hall in October and December 2007 through the present; 3) CDE is the entity entirely responsible for implementing and funding K.G.'s out-of-state RTC placement, consistent with his individual education program and all that it encompasses, for the period of October 26, 2007 though the date that he graduates high school or his twenty-second birthday, whichever occurs first. This obligation including, but is not limited to, funding K.G.'s tuition and related services for his out-of-state RTC placement at Daystar, as well as any transportation and visitation costs associated with that placement; 4) As of October 26, 2007, neither IUSD nor OCDE had, nor does IUSD or OCDE now have, any obligation to implement or fund any portion of K.G.'s IEP that placed K.G. in an out-of-state residential treatment facility, including his out-ofstate RTC placement at the residential treatment facility at Daystar; 5) CDE is ordered to reimburse OCDE in the amount of $59,185.52 for the educationally-related costs that OCDE has expended for K.G.'s educational program from October 26, 2007 through the present;
{1008092.1 }

-2AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

6)

CDE is ordered to reimburse IUSD in the amount of $34,300.60 for the

educationally-related costs that IUSD has expended for K.G.'s educational program from October 26, 2007 through the present; 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) OCDE and IUSD are prevailing parties for purposes of the underlying K.G. is the prevailing party as against CDE only for purposes of the OCDE, IUSD, and K.G. shall recover their reasonable costs of suit This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties to the extent necessary to This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties to the extent necessary to administrative action and the instant appeal thereof; underlying administrative action and the instant appeal thereof; herein against CDE; allow OCDE to obtain reimbursement from CDE, as described herein; and allow K.G. to obtain prevailing party attorney's fees from CDE pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for purposes of the underlying administrative action and the instant appeal hereof. Dated: December 06, 2010 By: ________________________________ HON. JAMES V. SELNA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

{1008092.1 }

-3AMENDED [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT