D.C. et al v. Oakdale Joint Unified School District et al

Filing 28

ORDER vacating hearing date of October 31, 2011 and order for further briefing. signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 10/26/2011. (Nazaroff, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

D.C., by and through his parent and
guardian ad litem, T.C. and T.C.
individually,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
OAKDALE JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL )
DISTRICT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:11-CV-01112 AWI DLB
ORDER VACATING
OCTOBER 31, 2011 HEARING
DATE AND ORDER FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

18
19
20

Currently pending before this Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. This motion is set
for hearing on October 31, 2011, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 2.

21

The Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that the majority of issues are

22

suitable for decision without oral argument or further briefing. See Local Rule 230(g).

23

However, the Court concludes that supplemental briefing is necessary regarding the following

24

issue.

25

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action, which were

26

brought under the American with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

27

1973. Specifically, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative

28

remedies as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The Ninth

1

Circuit has recently clarified that “IDEA’s exhaustion provision applies only in cases where the

2

relief sought by a plaintiff in the pleadings is available under the IDEA.” Payne v. Peninsula

3

Sch. Dist., 653 F.3d 863, 871 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Thus, the Ninth Circuit

4

concluded that exhaustion is required when (1) a plaintiff seeks an IDEA remedy or its functional

5

equivalent; (2) a plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to alter an Individual Education

6

Program (“IEP”) or the educational placement of a disabled student; or (3) a plaintiff is seeking

7

to enforce rights that arise as a result of a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”),

8

whether pled as an IDEA claim or any other claim that relies on the denial of a FAPE to provide

9

the basis for the cause of action. Id. at 875.

10

In their reply brief, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action

11

seek relief that requires IDEA exhaustion. With respect to the second cause of action,

12

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ second cause of action requests damages and injunctive relief

13

that could have been obtained under IDEA. Reply at 8:8-16, Doc. 24 at 8. With respect to the

14

third cause of action, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs are bringing a Section 504 cause of action

15

premised on the denial of FAPE, which requires IDEA exhaustion. Id. at 7:23-24, Doc. 24 at 7.

16

Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not explicitly tie each cause of action to a form of requested

17

relief. Therefore, it is unclear the exact relief that the second and third causes of action are

18

seeking to redress. In the “Prayer for Relief” section of the Complaint, Plaintiffs seek (1) an

19

order reversing the Office of Administrative Hearing’s decision regarding all issues subject to

20

this appeal; (2) compensatory education, reimbursement for private assessments and services and

21

future educational services; (3) declaratory and injunctive relief; (4) damages according to proof;

22

(5) Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and (6) such other and further relief as the

23

Court deems just and proper. Complaint at 16, Doc. 2 at 16.

24

In the second cause of action, Plaintiffs allege:

25

55.

26

Defendant’s conduct violated the ADA in that Plaintiff D.C. who is a student with
a qualified disability, was either not provided programs, services and activities
that were provided to non-disabled students, or was provided programs, services
and activities that were not equal to, and are inferior to the services provided to

27
28

2

1

students who are not disabled. Plaintiff D.C. was in fact physically and
emotionally harmed by Defendant’s employees who used unnecessary and
harmful restraint techniques which amounts to disability discrimination. [Plaintiff
D.C.’s] parents suffered from emotional distress due to the actions of the District
and its employees that constituted disability discrimination.

2
3
4

56.

Defendant’s conduct violated and continues to violate the ADA and unless
restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to violate said law. Said
conduct, unless enjoined will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have
no adequate remedy at law.

57.

Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Section 308 of
the ADA (42 U.S.C. Section 12188). Plaintiffs are also entitled to reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs.

5
6
7
8
9

Complaint at ¶¶ 55-57. The second cause of action is unclear whether Plaintiff D.C. is seeking

10

damages to compensate him for physical and emotional harm suffered as a result of not receiving

11

an adequate education or whether he is seeking damages as a result of physical and emotional

12

harm suffered as a result of the Defendants using “unnecessary and harmful restraint techniques.”

13

In addition, the second cause of action is unclear as to whether the “emotional distress” of

14

Plaintiff D.C.’s parents stem from their concern that D.C. was not receiving an adequate

15

education and whether Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction to force Defendants to provide a

16

FAPE.

17

In the third cause of action, Plaintiffs allege:

18

61.

Plaintiff D.C. is a qualified individual with a disability.

19

62.

Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff [D.C.] on the sole basis of
disability.

63.

Solely by reason of his disability, Plaintiff [D.C.] has been excluded from
participation in, denied the benefit of, and subjected to discrimination in his
attempts to receive full and equal access to the facilities, programs, services and
activities offered by Defendant.

20
21
22
23

Complaint at ¶ 61-63. Plaintiffs allege that the “physical and emotional injuries, stress and

24

anxiety D.C. endured as a result of these actions denied him meaningful access to an appropriate

25

education.” Id. at ¶ 65 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs further allege that Plaintiff D.C.’s parents

26

“suffered from emotional distress due to the actions of the District and its employees that

27
28

3

1

constituted disability discrimination.” Id. at ¶ 66. From the allegations, it appears that Plaintiffs

2

may be alleging that they suffered damages as a result D.C.’s denial of a FAPE.

3

The Court directs Plaintiffs to address and explain (1) the exact relief they are seeking in

4

their second and third causes of action; (2) whether the specific relief Plaintiffs are seeking in the

5

second and third causes of action is available under IDEA; (3) whether Plaintiffs are seeking

6

prospective injunctive relief to alter D.C.’s IEP or the educational placement of D.C.; and (4)

7

whether Plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action are seeking to enforce rights that arise as a

8

result of the denial of a FAPE.

9
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

11
12

parties shall not appear at that time;
2.

13
14

On or before November 4, 2011, Plaintiffs shall file supplemental briefing
consistent with this order;

3.

15
16

The previously set hearing date of October 31, 2011, is VACATED, and the

On or before November 11, 2011, Defendants may file a reply brief to Plaintiffs’
supplemental brief; and

4.

17

After receipt of the supplemental briefs, the Court will take the matter under
submission, and will thereafter issue its decision.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:
0m8i78

October 26, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4