1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 A.L., on behalf of his minor child, E.L., Case No. 2:24-cv-04667-AB-MBK 10 Plaintiffs, FINDINGS OF FACT AND 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW v. 12

MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED

13 SCHOOL DISTRICT,

14 Defendant.

15

16 Before the Court is an appeal on the administrative record brought by student 17 E.L. (“Student”), his mother (“G.C.”), and father (“A.L.,” and together with G.C., 18 “Parents”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Manhattan Beach Unified School 19 District (“MBUSD” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs and Defendant each seek to overturn 20 portions of Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Cararea Lucier’s decision (Dkt. 30-1, 21 the “ALJ Decision”), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 22 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). Parents and MBUSD each filed a complaint to initiate 23 their respective appeals of the ALJ Decision. (Dkt. No. 1, “Student Compl.”; Dkt. No. 24 30, “MBUSD Compl.”). On August 2, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation 25 to consolidate the cases. (Dkt. No. 26). 26 On June 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their Principal Trial Brief (“PPB,” Dkt. No. 63) 27 and MBUSD filed its Principal Trial Brief (“DPB,” Dkt. No. 62). On July 25, 2025, 28 1 Plaintiffs filed their Opposition Trial Brief (“POB,” Dkt. No. 65) and MBUSD filed its

2 Opposition Trial Brief (“DOB,” Dkt. No. 64). On August 8, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their

3 Reply Trial Brief (“PRB,” Dkt. No. 68) and MBUSD filed its Reply Trial Brief (“DRB,”

4 Dkt. No. 67). The matter is thus fully briefed. Upon review of the parties’ briefs, the

5 extensive Administrative Record (“AR Vol. I,” Dkt. No. 44-1; “AR Vol. II,” Dkt. No.

6 44-2; “AR Vol. III,” Dkt. No. 44-3), and Parents’ supplement evidence (Dkt. No. 61),

7 the Court found this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument and vacated

8 the hearing set for October 24, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15;

9 (Dkt. No. 74). For the following reasons, the ALJ Decision is AFFIRMED.

10 Functionally, this action in federal court is an appeal of the ALJ Decision.

11 However, sometimes it is viewed as a trial based on the administrative record. Compare

12 Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1472 (9th Cir. 1993) (IDEA claim

13 review is “essentially . . . a bench trial based on the stipulated record”), with Capistrano

14 Unified Sch. Dist. v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884, 892 (9th Cir. 1995) (review is “in

15 substance an appeal from an administrative determination”). Accordingly, the following 16 constitutes the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). 17 I. FINDINGS OF FACT 18 A. Student’s Background 19 At the time of the administrative hearing, Student was a seventeen-year-old 20 private school student who resided with his Parents and sibling within Manhattan Beach 21 22 1 The Court elects to issue its decision in narrative form because a narrative format more 23 fully explains the reasons behind the Court’s conclusions, which aids appellate review. 24 Any finding of fact that constitutes a conclusion of law is hereby adopted as a conclusion of law, and any conclusion of law that constitutes a finding of fact is hereby 25 adopted as a finding of fact. Juan Pollo Franchising, Inc. v. B&K Pollo Enters., Inc., 26 2015 WL 10695881, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2015); see also Vance v. Am. Haw. Cruises Inc., 789 F.3d 790, 792 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding Rule 52(a)’s purpose is 27 “achieved if the district court’s findings are sufficient to indicate the factual basis for its 28 ultimate conclusions”). 1 Unified School District. (PPB at 7, 9). Parents moved to Manhattan Beach in April

2 2022. (Id. at 7). Student is a child with a disability as defined under 20 U.S.C.

3 § 1401(3)(A)(i) and is a child with exceptional needs as defined by California Education

4 Code section 56026. (Student Compl. ¶ 3). Student is diagnosed with Attention Deficit

5 Hyperactive Disorder (“ADHD”), Dyslexia, and Dysgraphia. (AR Vol. I at 8). Student

6 is an active and social teenager who enjoys taking walks with his family, playing

7 basketball, and getting boba drinks with friends. (AR Vol. III at 317).

8 Student was first found eligible for an individualized education plan (“IEP”) in

9 second grade while attending a public school within the Wiseburn Unified School

10 District (“WUSD”). (AR Vol. III at 211–12). Student remained enrolled within WUSD

11 through third grade and enrolled at the Prentice School, a private school, for fourth

12 grade. (Id. at 319–20). Student then enrolled in Rolling Hills Preparatory School, a 13 private school, for fifth and sixth grade. (Id.). For grades seven3 and eight, Student

14 enrolled in Adams Middle School, a public school within the Redondo Beach Unified

15 School District (“RBUSD”). (Id.). Student then enrolled in Redondo Union High 16 School, an RBUSD public school, for ninth grade. (Id.). Student was reassessed for IEP 17 eligibility, and found eligible, by RBUSD in 2019. (AR Vol. I at 322–23; 343–64). 18 RBUSD later developed an IEP for student in November 2021. (Id. at 322–42). For 19 grades ten and eleven, Student enrolled in the Westmark School (“Westmark”)—a 20 private school specializing in educating children with learning disabilities. (Id. at 10; 21 AR Vol. III at 321). 22 B. April 2023 Correspondence with MBUSD 23 On April 3, 2023, Timothy Adams (“Adams”), Parents’ attorney, sent Dr. 24 Kristopher Vegas (“Vegas”) a letter via email stating Parents retained Adams’s firm to 25 handle educational matters for Student. (AR Vol. I at 318–19). The letter requested (1) 26 2 All record citations reflect CM/ECF pagination. 27 3 Student attended Rolling Hills Preparatory School for part of seventh grade before 28 transferring to Adams Middle School for the remainder of that year. (AR Vol. III at 114). 1 Student’s educational record, (2) that MBUSD develop an interim IEP and convene a

2 thirty-day IEP meeting, and (3) that MBUSD provide a comprehensive assessment plan

3 for Student’s triennial review which came due in November 2022. (Id.). With the letter,

4 Adams included (1) an authorization form Parents signed to permit MBUSD to release

5 Student’s record to Adams’s firm, the IEP assessment RBUSD conducted in 2019, and

6 (3) the IEP RBUSD developed for Student dated November 10, 2021. (Id. at 318–64).

7 That November 10, 2021, IEP included a section labeled “Consent” which provided

8 check boxes to indicate whether Parents consented to (1) the entire IEP, (2) portions of

9 the IEP, or (3) none of the IEP; under those boxes is a parent or guardian signature line.

10 (Id. at 337). In the Consent section of Student’s November 10, 2021, IEP Adams

11 provided to MBUSD, there was neither a box checked, nor a signature provided. (Id.).

12 On April 4, 2023, Mary Jo Griss (“Griss”)—an Office Specialist with the Special

13 Education Department of MBUSD—responded via email to confirm receipt and state

14 neither MBUSD nor Mira Costa High School (“Mira Costa”) had any records for

15 Student. (Id. at 315). Adam’s assistant, Claire Goldstein (“Goldstein”), responded 16 eleven minutes later but failed to address Griss’s concern; Goldstein wrote, “Thank you, 17 received and acknowledged. We await the District’s IEP meeting notice and assessment 18 plan as requested in the letter.” (Id.). 19 On April 14, 2023, Griss responded to Goldstein to reiterate Student “has never 20 attended a school within” MBUSD; Griss also stated Vegas would reach out to Adams 21 within a few days. (Id.). Later, on April 14, Adams responded via email to inform Vegas 22 his clients would register and verify residency as soon as possible. (Id. at 314). Vegas 23 emailed Goldstein later that same day to inform her he had left a voicemail with her 24 colleague and wanted to follow up via email; Vegas reiterated MBUSD had no record 25 of Student attending any of its schools, requested Student’s current address, and offered 26 to help Student enroll. (AR Vol. II at 101). 27 C. G.C. Provides Enrollment Paperwork to Mira Costa 28 Mira Costa requires new enrollees to complete an online enrollment form and 1 submit documents to the school. (See AR Vol. III at 292, 364–65). G.C. attempted to

2 complete the online enrollment form for both Student and Student’s sibling; however,

3 G.C. did not complete the online enrollment form for Student. (Id. at 218–19). G.C.

4 testified she was unable to complete the online enrollment form for Student because it

5 allowed her to select general education courses only—as opposed to an option to

6 indicate Student has an IEP. (Id.). G.C. successfully completed the online enrollment

7 form for Student’s sibling. (Id. at 225–27). G.C. testified that she dropped off the 8 required paperwork to obtain an IEP for Student4 and enroll Student’s sibling at Mira

9 Costa on April 26, 2023. (Id. at 291–92). On Student’s enrollment documents checklist

10 G.C. submitted to Mira Costa along with some of the required documents, G.C. wrote

11 “[Student] attends a private school and does not plan to attend school in the district but

12 needs to be registered with the district because he has an IEP.” (Id. at 43). Because G.C.

13 had not completed the online enrollment form for Student, Mira Costa set aside the

14 paperwork G.C. dropped off—which included proof of Student’s residency within

15 MBUSD. (Id. at 42). 16 D. May–September 2023 Correspondence with MBUSD 17 On May 3, 2023, an attorney at Adams’s firm, Andrea Blair (“Blair”), emailed 18 Vegas to follow up on Parents’ request to convene an IEP meeting for Student. (Id. at 19 36). On May 5, 2023, after checking with other MBUSD staff, Vegas responded that 20 MBUSD still did not have a registration record for Student. (Id.). On May 15, 2023, 21 Janet Norris (“Norris”), an MBUSD Administrative Assistant, emailed Vegas to inform 22 him Mira Costa had received enrollment documents for Student, but they had been set 23 aside as no online enrollment form for Student had been completed. (Id. at 42; AR Vol. 24 I at 91). 25 On May 16, 2023, Goldstein sent a letter from Adams via email to Vegas and 26 Griss to follow up on Parents’ prior requests to convene an IEP meeting and stated

27 4 G.C. testified that she “wasn’t trying to enroll [Student]. [She] was trying to get an 28 IEP.” (AR Vol. III at 291). 1 Parents had provided proof of residency on April 26, 2023. (AR Vol. III at 52–53). Griss

2 responded that after researching the request again, Student never attended a MBUSD

3 school nor does MBUSD have any IEP information for Student; Griss suggested Parents

4 reach out to Student’s prior school or RBUSD for more information about Student. (Id.

5 at 50). Goldstein responded that day, without copying Vegas, and stated she understood

6 MBUSD has no records for Student, referred Griss back to Adams’ May 16 letter

7 attached to her initial email that day, and stated Parents had verified residency within

8 MBUSD and are requesting an IEP meeting. (Id. at 49). Griss responded later the same

9 day, this time copying Vegas and his administrative assistant, and directed Blair to

10 discuss the IEP meeting request with Vegas. (Id. at 49–50).

11 On May 25, 2023, Blair responded to Griss’s May 16 email to reiterate Student

12 had made three requests for an IEP meeting and that Student would file a due process

13 complaint if MBUSD did not promptly convene an IEP team meeting. (Id. at 48; AR

14 Vol. I at 276). As discussed further below, Parents filed their due process complaint on

15 June 9, 2023, and an early resolution meeting was held on July 18, 2023. (AR Vol. I at 16 12, 410). 17 On August 16, 2023, Vegas sent Parents a prior written notice letter, an 18 assessment plan, a fact sheet regarding parents’ rights and procedural safeguards, and 19 four copies of authorization forms to allow Student’s prior schools to share information 20 about Student with MBUSD. (AR Vol. III at 55–84). On August 23, 2023, Adams 21 replied to MBUSD’s counsel to confirm receipt of the August 16 correspondence and 22 direct MBUSD to contact RBUSD to obtain a copy of Student’s educational file. (AR 23 Vol. I at 413). 24 On August 28, 2023, in response to the assessment plan proposed on August 16, 25 Adams sent a letter addressed to MBUSD’s counsel to request MBUSD’s school 26 psychologist reach out to Parents to discuss suspected areas of disability and provide 27 additional information to the IEP team to ensure Student would not be unnecessarily 28 evaluated in areas where he exhibits no need. (Id. at 379). Also on August 28, 2023, 1 MBUSD’s counsel responded to Adams’s August 23 email to inform Adams the

2 authorization forms sent to Parents had not been signed and requested Parents do so.

3 (Id. at 412). Between August 28 and September 8, 2023, MBUSD’s counsel and

4 Parents’ counsel exchanged a series of emails in which they argued over whether

5 California Education Code sections 49067(a)(1)(B) and 49068(d) allowed MBUSD to

6 receive Student’s records without Parents’ consent; Student’s counsel maintained the

7 releases were unnecessary while MBUSD’s counsel maintained they were required. (Id.

8 at 408–12). However, on September 7, 2023, G.C. emailed the signed and completed

9 authorization forms to MBUSD’s school psychologist and consented to MBUSD’s

10 revised assessment plan. (Id. at 403).

11 E. Procedural History

12 On June 9, 2023, Student filed a due process complaint against MBUSD. (Id. at

13 12). On July 18, 2023, the parties unsuccessfully participated in an early resolution

14 session to resolve the allegations in the due process complaint. (AR Vol. III at 57). On

15 October 9, 2023, Student voluntarily dismissed his due process complaint without 16 prejudice and filed an amended complaint on October 11, 2023. (AR Vol. I at 7–20). 17 MBUSD made a settlement offer to Parents on December 29, 2023; however, Parents 18 rejected the settlement offer. (DPB at 33–34). 19 ALJ Lucier conducted the due process hearing via videoconference on January 20 9, 10, 11, and 16, 2024. (ALJ Decision at 2). ALJ Lucier subsequently issued her 21 decision on March 7, 2024. (Id.). In her decision, ALJ Lucier clarified and restated the 22 issues Parents raised in their due process complaint as follows: 23 1. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a free appropriate public education 24 (“FAPE”) during the 2022-2023 school year, beginning on April 18, 25 2023, by failing to provide Parents with an assessment plan within 15 26 days of Parents’ request on April 3, 2023. 27 2. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a FAPE, during the 2022-2023 28 school year, beginning on May 3, 2023, by failing to convene an IEP 1 team meeting within 30 days of Parents’ written requests on: (a) April

2 3, 2023; (b) May 3, 2023; (c) May 16, 2023; and (d) May 25, 2023?

3 3. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a FAPE, during the 2022-2023

4 school year, beginning on April 3, 2023, by failing to provide Parents

5 with prior written notice in response to Parents’ requests for IEP

6 meetings on: (a) April 3, 2023; (b) May 3, 2023; (c) May 16, 2023; and

7 (d) May 25, 2023?

8 4. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a FAPE, during the 2022-2023

9 school year, beginning on April 3, 2023, by failing to provide Parents

10 with prior written notice in response to Parents’ request for assessment

11 on April 3, 2023?

12 5. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a FAPE, during the 2022-2023

13 school year by failing to ensure an interim IEP was in place upon

14 Student’s enrollment?

15 6. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 16 school year by failing to convene the mandatory resolution meeting 17 within 15 days of receiving notice of Student’s request for due process 18 in Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) Case No. 2023060356, 19 filed on June 9, 2023? 20 7. Did Manhattan Beach deny Student a FAPE, during the 2023-2024 21 school year by failing to have an IEP in place for Student prior to the 22 2023-2024 school year? 23 (Id. at 3–4 (citation modified)). 24 ALJ Lucier found for Student on issue one and found for MBUSD on issues two 25 through seven. (Id. at 28–30). Both Parents and MBUSD seek partial reversal of the 26 ALJ Decision. Parents seek an order from this Court that (1) reverses the ALJ Decision 27 on issues two through seven, (2) awards Parents reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred 28 during the administrative hearing as a prevailing party on an issue of significance, and 1 (3) awards Parents reasonable attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party in this appeal.

2 (Student Compl. at 5–6). MBUSD seeks an order from this Court that (1) reverses the

3 ALJ Decision on issue one, (2) finds MBUSD acted lawfully in accordance with the

4 IDEA and California law, (3) finds Student is not entitled to the remedy ALJ Lucier

5 ordered, and (4) finds Parents are not entitled to any award of attorneys’ fees or costs.

6 (MBUSD Compl. at ¶¶ 62–65).

7 On December 13, 2024, Parents filed a motion to supplement the administrative

8 record; (Dkt. No. 46), MBUSD opposed. (Dkt. No. 51). Parents replied in support of

9 their motion to supplement the record. (Dkt. No. 53). On January 29, 2025, the Court

10 granted Parents’ motion to supplement the record. (Dkt. No. 54). On June 18, 2025,

11 Parents’ counsel supplemented the record with A.L.’s deposition transcript. (“A.L.

12 Dep.,” Dkt. No. 61).

13 II. CONLCUSIONS OF LAW

14 A. Standard of Review

15 Under the IDEA, a party may challenge an adverse decision obtained through a 16 due process hearing in a civil action. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). In such an action 17 challenging an administrative decision, the IDEA provides “the court shall receive the 18 records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request 19 of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant 20 such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” Ojai, 4 F.3d at 1471 (citing 20 U.S.C. 21 § 1415(i)(2)(C)). 22 “Judicial review in IDEA cases ‘differs substantially from judicial review of 23 other agency actions, in which courts are generally confined to the administrative record 24 and are held to a highly deferential standard of review.’” M.C. ex rel. M.N. v. Antelope 25 Valley Union High Sch. Dist., 858 F.3d 1189, 1194 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Ojai, 4 F.3d 26 at 1471). However, “[t]he fact that § 1415(e) requires that the reviewing court ‘receive 27 the records of the [state] administrative proceedings’ carries with it the implied 28 requirement that due weight shall be given to these proceedings.” Bd. of Educ. of 1 Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cnty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206

2 (1982). “The level of deference the Court should provide the ALJ’s decision ‘is a matter

3 of discretion of the courts.’” N.G. v. ABC Unified Sch. Dist., 2014 WL 4678967, at *3

4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014), aff’d, 670 F. App’x 540 (9th Cir. 2016). “The court gives

5 particular deference where the hearing officer’s administrative findings are ‘thorough

6 and careful.’” R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 496 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007).

7 A decision is thorough and careful “when the officer participates in the questioning of

8 witnesses and writes a decision containing a complete factual background as well as a

9 discrete analysis supporting the ultimate conclusions.” Id. at 942.

10 Here, ALJ Lucier participated in the questioning of witnesses during a hearing

11 that took place over four days. (ALJ Decision at 2; AR Vol. III at 316). ALJ Lucier

12 wrote a thirty-two-page opinion replete with relevant details from the factual record.

13 (ALJ Decision at 5–12). ALJ Lucier recited the relevant legal standards governing

14 IDEA claims, analyzed the issues and arguments presented, and supported her

15 conclusions with factual findings. (See generally id.). Accordingly, the ALJ Decision 16 deserves particular deference. See R.B., 496 F.3d at 942. 17 B. The IDEA 18 The IDEA guarantees a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to children 19 with disabilities. Doug C. v. Haw. Dept. of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2013). 20 The IDEA defines a FAPE as: 21 special education and related services that (A) have been provided at public 22 expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) 23 meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an 24 appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education 25 in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the 26 individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this 27 title. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). “The IDEA ensures that ‘all children with disabilities have 1 available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education

2 and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further

3 education, employment, and independent living.’” J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified

4 Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 432 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)). “To

5 accomplish this goal, the statute ‘provides federal funds to assist state and local agencies

6 in educating children with disabilities, but conditions such funding on compliance with

7 certain goals and procedures.’” Cnty. of San Diego v. Cal. Special Educ. Hearing Off.,

8 93 F.3d 1458, 1461–62 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Ojai, 4 F.3 at 1469).

9 The party challenging the administrative decision to enforce their IDEA rights in

10 federal court bears the burden of persuasion on each claim challenged. Hood v.

11 Encinitas Union Sch. Dist., 486 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, MBUSD

12 challenges the ALJ Decision as to issue one and thus bears the burden of persuasion on

13 that issue; Student challenges the ALJ Decision as to issues two through seven and thus

14 bears the burden of persuasion on those issues.

15 C. Issue One: Failure to Timely Provide an Assessment Plan 16 ALJ Lucier concluded MBUSD denied Student a FAPE during the 2022–23 17 school year. (ALJ Decision at 5–13). ALJ Lucier found MBUSD provided parents with 18 a written assessment plan five weeks late and that delay significantly impeded Parents’ 19 opportunity to participate in the assessment process. (Id.). 20 In Capistrano Unified School District v. S.W., the Ninth Circuit held a district 21 need not prepare an IEP for a parentally placed private school student. 21 F.4th 1125, 22 1138 (9th Cir. 2021). However, the court also held “when parents withdraw a student 23 from public school and place her in private school, all they have to do is ask for an IEP, 24 and then the district must prepare one.” Id.; see also Bellflower Unified Sch. Dist. v. 25 Lua, 832 F. App’x 493, 495–96 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The Department of Education’s 26 regulations implementing the IDEA specifically contemplate that, upon a parent’s 27 request, a school district must evaluate a child residing in its district for purposes of 28 making a FAPE available to her, even if she is enrolled in a private school in another 1 district.”). The Capistrano court reasoned, “such a request shows that the parents are at

2 least nominally seeking a public education for their child.” 21 F.4th at 1137. Thus, upon

3 a student’s parents’ request, a school district must reevaluate the student for special

4 education services. Irvine Unified Sch. Dist. v. Landers, 2023 WL 67874480, at *9

5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2023). Unless the parties agree otherwise, “[w]ithin 15 days of a

6 student’s referral for assessment, the school district must provide a proposed assessment

7 plan to the parents.” Id. (citing Cal. Educ. Code § 56321(a)).

8 Here, ALJ Lucier found Parents’ initial contact with MBUSD on April 3, 2022,

9 failed to provide MBUSD with documentation sufficient to prove Student resided 10 within MBUSD and confused MBUSD staff5 as they had no record of Student attending

11 any school within MBUSD. (ALJ Decision at 9–10). ALJ Lucier noted MBUSD and

12 Parents’ attorneys exchanged numerous emails after the initial April 3 communication

13 wherein MBUSD (1) requested clarification as to whether Student resided in MBUSD,

14 (2) asked if Parents were attempting to enroll student at Mira Costa, and (3) offered to

15 assist Parents to enroll Student if they so desired. (AR Vol. I at 314–316; AR Vol. II at 16 101). After examining the parties’ communications, ALJ Lucier found MBUSD 17 received the requisite documentation from G.C. on April 26, 2023, when she dropped 18 off enrollment paperwork at Mira Costa. (ALJ Decision at 12). Consequently, ALJ 19 Lucier found MBUSD became obligated to provide an assessment plan for Student to 20 Parents by May 11, 2023—fifteen days from April 26, 2023. (Id.). Accordingly, ALJ 21 Lucier correctly held MBUSD procedurally violated the IDEA when it failed to provide 22 that assessment plan to Parents by May 11, 2023. (Id.). 23 While “not all procedural violations deny the child a FAPE,” the Ninth Circuit 24 “more often than not” has held a procedural violation denies a student a FAPE if that

25 5 Compounding the confusion was the incomplete enrollment paperwork G.C. provided 26 Mira Costa on April 26, 2023. (AR Vol. III at 42). On the enrollment checklist form G.C. deposited at Mira Costa, G.C. wrote “[Student] attends a private school and does 27 not plan to attend school in the district but needs to be registered with the district 28 because he has an IEP.” (Id. at 8). 1 student has already been identified as eligible for special education services under the

2 IDEA. See R.B., 496 F.3d at 938, 940–41. As ALJ Lucier stated in her decision, the

3 IDEA provides that a procedural violation results in the denial of a FAPE when it (1)

4 impedes the student’s right to a FAPE, (2) significantly impedes the parent’s

5 opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a

6 FAPE, or (3) causes a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii).

7 ALJ Lucier reasoned this procedural violation denied Student a FAPE during the 2022–

8 23 school year because “it denied Parents the right to participate in the IEP process by 9 delaying the assessment process.” (ALJ Decision at 12).

10 MBUSD argues ALJ Lucier erred in finding MBUSD denied Student a FAPE

11 during the 2022–23 school year because student was a parentally placed private school 12 student without such an entitlement.6 (DPB at 25–26). MBUSD relies on Capistrano 13 and 34 C.F.R. § 300.137(a)7 for the proposition that “parentally placed private school

14 students with disabilities do not share the same entitlement to special education and

15 related services as students who are enrolled in public schools.” (DPB at 20, 25–26). 16 However, such an interpretation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.137 would prevent any parentally 17 placed private school student from evaluating the services their local public school may 18 offer them. MBUSD’s interpretation is thus unpersuasive and incompatible with 19 Capistrano. As noted above, Capistrano holds all Parents needed to do was “ask for an 20 IEP, and then the district must prepare one.” 21 F.4th at 1138. MBUSD thus fails to 21 carry its burden to show ALJ Lucier erroneously concluded MBUSD denied Student a 22 FAPE during the 2022–23 school year by delaying the assessment process.

23 6 MBUSD fails to argue its delay did not significant impede Parents’ opportunity to 24 participate in the decision-making process. (See DPB at 26 (“Even if District was required and failed to provide an assessment plan to Student . . . within 15 days of 25 Parents’ request, any delay by from [sic] District could not result in the denial of FAPE 26 to Student as he had no individual entitlement to a FAPE.”)). 7 34 C.F.R. § 300.137(a) states “[n]o parentally placed private school child with a 27 disability has an individual right to receive some or all of the special education and 28 related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public school.” 1 Accordingly, the Court AFFRIMS the ALJ Decision as to issue one.

2 D. Issue Two: Failure to Timely Convene an IEP Team Meeting

3 ALJ Lucier found Parents failed to show MBUSD was required to convene an

4 IEP team meeting for Student during the 2022–23 school year because “Student failed

5 to show Parents had ever consented to the initiation of special education services.” (ALJ

6 Decision at 18).

7 The Ninth Circuit has held a school district is required to convene an IEP team

8 meeting, even though a student is a parentally placed private school, if that student’s

9 parents made clear they are interested in a public-school placement. See Bellflower, 832

10 F. App’x at 496. However, if the student’s parent “refuses to consent to the initial

11 provision of special education and related services, or the parent fails to respond to a

12 request to provide the consent,” the district “shall not be required to convene an IEP

13 team meeting or develop an IEP” for special education and related services. Cal. Educ.

14 Code § 56346(c) (citation modified); see also Cal. Educ. Code § 56346(g); 34

15 C.F.R. §§ 300.300(b), (d). ALJ Lucier thus held to prevail on issue two Parents must 16 show they (1) intended to consider a public-school placement and (2) had either (a) 17 previously consented to special education services in a different district, or (b) permitted 18 MBUSD to assess Student and determine him eligible. (ALJ Decision 17–18). 19 First, ALJ Lucier examined whether Parents expressed a clear intention to keep 20 Student enrolled in private school. (Id. at 15–16). ALJ Lucier considered the following 21 as evidence Parents intended to keep Student in private school: (1) the veracity of G.C.’s 22 testimony;8 (2) that Parents signed an enrollment contract with, and paid a

23 8 Parents argue ALJ Lucier’s finding that G.C.’s testimony was not credible was 24 erroneous because ALJ Lucier unfairly questioned G.C. about a lawsuit A.L. filed against RBUSD on Student’s behalf. (PPB at 27). Parents thus provided supplemental 25 evidence to rebut ALJ Lucier’s credibility finding. (See generally A.L. Dep.). However, 26 ALJ Lucier based her credibility finding on more than just G.C.’s statements about this lawsuit she allegedly had no part in. (ALJ Decision at 15). ALJ Lucier held G.C. 27 “evaded most questions asked by Manhattan Beach’s counsel and frequently stated she 28 did not know or could not remember the answer to a question.” (Id.). Upon review of 1 nonrefundable deposit to, Westmark; (3) that G.C. wrote Student attends a private

2 school and does not plan to attend school in the district on the incomplete Mira Costa

3 student enrollment checklist she submitted for Student; and (4) that during a resolution

4 session with MBUSD, G.C. reiterated Student did not plan to attend public school in

5 MBUSD. (Id. at 16). Conversely, ALJ Lucier considered that Parents’ attorneys

6 repeatedly told MBUSD Student was eligible for special education services and

7 requested an IEP team meeting as evidence Parents were interested in a public school

8 placement for Student and needed an offer of a FAPE to consider it. (Id.). ALJ Lucier

9 ultimately concluded Parents’ communication with MBUSD was muddled and Parents’

10 conduct was ambiguous; however, taken as a whole, ALJ Lucier concluded Parents’

11 communication did not establish a clear intention to keep Student enrolled in private

12 school. (Id. at 16–17).

13 Second, ALJ Lucier considered whether Parents’ communications, through their

14 attorneys, were sufficient to obligate MBUSD to convene an IEP team meeting for

15 Student. (Id.). ALJ Lucier found Parents’ attorneys provided MBUSD with a draft copy 16 of an initial assessment dated November 15, 2019, and an IEP dated November 10, 17 2021, that lacked a signature to indicate Parents consented to its implementation. (Id.). 18 ALJ Lucier consequently reasoned the documents Parents submitted to MBUSD 19 established RBUSD had assessed Student and found him eligible for special education 20 services but not that Parents had ever consented to the initiation of such services. (Id.). 21 ALJ Lucier thus held, without evidence of such consent, MBUSD was not legally 22 obligated to treat Student as a child with a disability under the IDEA. (Id. at 18). 23 Accordingly, ALJ Lucier found MBUSD did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to 24 convene an IEP team meeting because MBUSD was not so required based on the April 25 3, May 3, May 16, or May 25, 2023 requests. (Id.). 26 the hearing transcript, the Court finds the record supports ALJ Lucier’s credibility 27 determination. (See AR Vol. III at 266–67, 271, 273, 279–80, 282, 289, 290–92, 296, 28 301–03, 306–08). 1 ALJ Lucier also found Parents limited MBUSD’s access to information

2 necessary to assess Student and convene the desired IEP team meeting. (ALJ Decision

3 at 17–18). Parents argue they took no such obstructive action. (PPB at 18). However,

4 when MBUSD asked Student’s attorneys for Parents’ consent to receive Student’s

5 records from RBUSD, Student’s attorneys initially refused. (AR Vol. I at 404–14).

6 Parents’ attorneys did not refuse consent due to privacy concerns; rather, they refused

7 consent based on their belief such consent was unnecessary. (See id.). This refusal

8 delayed the process; Parents received MBUSD’s requests for authorization on August

9 16 and did not sign and return those authorization forms until September 7. (Id.).

10 Moreover, the parties exchanged numerous emails between April 3 and May 25,

11 2023. (Id. at 318–64; AR Vol. III at 48–53; 101–08). Yet in none of these

12 communications did Parents’ attorneys clearly express Student previously attended an

13 RBUSD school with an operative IEP and Parents now seek an offer of FAPE to

14 consider for the 2023–24 school year. (See id.). This confusion lingered late into

15 summer; Vegas stated in a letter to Parents dated August 16, 2023, that during the early 16 resolution meeting on July 18, 2023, “G.C. stated that she did not complete the Online 17 Enrollment Form for [Student] because he would be attending a private school and does 18 not plan to attend school in the District.” (AR Vol. III at 57). In that letter, Vegas further 19 stated Parents still had not completed the registration process which continued to 20 prevent MBUSD from finding Student’s information in their system. (Id.). 21 Parents contend G.C.’s testimony and the November 2019 and November 2021 22 IEP documents clearly show Parents consented to the provision of special education 23 services while Student attended public school in RBUSD. (PPB at 17). Thus, Parents 24 argue ALJ Lucier erred by holding MBUSD was not required to consider Student a 25 child with a disability under the IDEA. (Id.). Parents’ argument is unpersuasive. As 26 discussed above, ALJ Lucier held the documents Parents submitted to MBUSD in 27 Spring 2023 failed to evince consent and thus failed to obligate MBUSD to convene an 28 IEP team meeting within thirty days of the April and May requests. (ALJ Decision at 1 15–18). G.C.’s testimony at the due process hearing—which occurred months after the

2 April and May requests—that she consented to the RBUSD IEP fails to show MBUSD

3 was aware of such consent when it received Parents’ attorneys’ requests in April and

4 May 2023. As G.C. testified, none of the boxes indicating parental consent were

5 checked on the November 2021 IEP sent to MBUSD in April 2023. (AR Vol. III at

6 303). Parents’ attorneys surely communicated RBUSD had assessed Student and

7 developed an IEP. (AR Vol. I at 318–64). However, such communication was

8 ambiguous as to IEP implementation because Student attended private school, and the

9 outdated IEP provided lacked parental consent. (Id.).

10 Consistent with the statute and precedent discussed above, ALJ Lucier correctly

11 held MBUSD was not obligated to convene an IEP team meeting until (1) Parents

12 confirmed they previously consented to special education services while Student

13 attended public school in RBUSD, or (2) MBUSD had completed its own assessment

14 of Student. Consequently, Parents fail to meet their burden to show ALJ Lucier

15 erroneously concluded Student was not entitled to an IEP team meeting within thirty 16 days of Parents’ attorneys’ requests on April 3, May 3, May 16, and May 25, 2023. 17 Accordingly, the Court AFFRIMS the ALJ Decision as to issue two. 18 E. Issues Three and Four: Failure to Provide Prior Written Notice9 19 ALJ Lucier held MBUSD was not required to provide prior written notice 20 (“PWN”) to Parents during the 2022–23 school year because MBUSD was not 21 “‘proposing or refusing’ to take any action with respect to Student from April 3, 2023, 22 through June 15, 2023,” the end of the 2022–23 MBUSD school year. (ALJ Decision 23 at 21). 24 A school district must provide prior written notice to the parents of a student with 25

26 9 ALJ Lucier elected to analyze issues three and four together as they both relate to MBUSD’s alleged failure to provide Parents with prior written notice. Issue three relates 27 to Parents’ requests for an IEP team meeting and issue four relates to Parents’ requests 28 for an assessment of Student. (ALJ Decision at 19). 1 a disability whenever the district “(A) proposes to initiate or change; or (B) refuses to

2 initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child,

3 or the provision of [FAPE] to the child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 34 C.F.R.

4 § 300.503(a). Parents argue MBUSD failed to provide PWN in response to their

5 “numerous requests” made during the 2022–23 school year until August 16, 2023—

6 over four months from the date they first requested an IEP assessment and team

7 meeting. (PPB at 21). MBUSD argues ALJ Lucier correctly held PWN was unnecessary

8 because MBUSD did not propose or refuse to act with respect to Student. (DOB at 20–

9 21).

10 As ALJ Lucier found, Parents initiated contact with MBUSD on April 3, 2023,

11 though their attorneys who requested an IEP assessment and team meeting. (ALJ

12 Decision at 21; AR Vol. I at 314–16). MBUSD responded the following day and stated

13 in bold print, neither Mira Costa nor MBUSD had any record of Student. (Id.). Parents’

14 attorneys and MBUSD personnel proceeded to exchange numerous emails in which

15 Parents’ attorneys continued to request an assessment and team meeting, and MBUSD 16 continued to inform them it had no record of Student. (AR Vol. I at 314–16, 372–74; 17 AR Vol. II at 101–08; AR Vol. III at 33–34, 42–43). 18 ALJ Lucier consequently found MBUSD (1) “was in a process of dialogue, 19 investigation, and problem solving”; (2) “did not agree, or refuse, to take any steps with 20 respect to Student”; and (3) responded to Parents’ requests reasonably and promptly. 21 (ALJ Decision at 22–23). The Court thus agrees with ALJ Lucier that MBUSD was not 22 obligated to send Parents PWN in response to their April 3, May 3, May 16, and May 23 25 requests because, at those times, MBUSD did not propose or refuse to take any action 24 with respect to Student. Consequently, Parents cannot meet their burden to show ALJ 25 Lucier erred as to issues three and four. 26 Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ Decision as to issues three and four. 27 F. Issue Five: Failure to Implement an Interim IEP 28 ALJ Lucier held MBUSD did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to develop an 1 interim IEP upon Parents’ request because Student (1) was a parentally placed private

2 school student and (2) lacked an operative IEP at the proposed time of transfer as “an

3 unconsented to IEP cannot be the basis for providing interim services.” (ALJ Decision

4 at 23–25).

5 If a student who had an IEP in effect in the transferor district transfers school

6 districts within the same state and academic year, the transferee school district must

7 provide a FAPE to the student, including services comparable to those described in the

8 student’s IEP from the transferor district, until the transferee district either (1) adopts

9 the transferor district’s IEP or (2) develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP. See 20

10 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e).

11 Parents argue MBUSD was obligated to develop an interim IEP at their request

12 because RBUSD developed an IEP for Student during the 2021–22 school year and

13 Parents provided it to MBUSD. (PPB at 22–23). Parents further contend MBUSD

14 “should have contacted RBUSD to receive Student’s educational records and any

15 additional information necessary to develop an interim IEP for Student.” (Id.). MBUSD 16 argues ALJ Lucier correctly found MBUSD was not obligated to develop an interim 17 IEP because Student was a parentally placed private school student when Parents 18 requested the interim IEP. (DOB at 22). 19 ALJ Lucier, relying on § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) and S.H. v. Mount Diablo Unified 20 School District, reasoned Student, as a parentally placed private school student, was 21 ineligible for an interim IEP because the IDEA requires an interim IEP only if the 22 student transfers from one public school district to another. (ALJ Decision at 24); 263 23 F. Supp. 3d 746, 758–59 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2017) (“[T]he IDEA allows school districts 24 to perform an ‘interim IEP’ when a student transfers mid-year from one school district 25 to another and has an IEP in effect at the time of the transfer.”). However, S.H. does not 26 explicitly preclude interim IEP entitlement to students transferring into public schools 27 from private schools. See 263 F. Supp. 3d at 758–59 (holding § 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) 28 “applies only to mid-year transfers” without explicitly holding it inapplicable to any 1 student who transfers from a private school). Nevertheless, 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e) does

2 lend support to ALJ Lucier’s reasoning because it explicitly refers to “children who 3 transfer public agencies in the same State.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.232(e) (emphasis added).10

4 Regardless of whether Section 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) applies to students who transfer only

5 from public school, Student was not seeking a mid-year transfer; thus, Section

6 1414(d)(2)(C)(i)(I) would not have applied to Student during the 2022–23 school year.

7 (See AR Vol. III at 454 (During the administrative hearing, G.C testified, “[i]t wasn’t

8 my plan to move him in the middle of the school year, the 2022/2023 school year.”)).

9 ALJ Lucier further held the November 2021 IEP Parents provided MBUSD failed

10 to show Parents consented to its implementation. (AR Vol. I at 337; ALJ Decision at

11 24–25). Parents argue they did consent the IEP; however, Parents argument fails here

12 for the same reason discussed above in Section II.D—MBUSD, at the time, lacked

13 sufficient information from Parents to confirm the November 2021 IEP was ever in

14 effect. Thus, the November 2021 IEP “lacked consent and therefore could not be used

15 as a basis for providing interim services or developing an interim IEP.” S.H., 263 F. 16 Supp. 3d at 760. 17 Relatedly, Parents argue MBUSD should have done more to obtain records from 18 RBUSD. (PPB at 23). However, MBUSD attempted to obtain such information when it 19 requested Parents authorize RBUSD to disclose Student’s records. (AR Vol. I at 413– 20 14). As ALJ Lucier found, “Parents and their attorneys took actions that limited 21 Manhattan Beach’s knowledge of Student’s educational history in Redondo Beach and 22 Manhattan Beach’s ability to communicate with Redondo Beach.” (ALJ Decision at

23 10 The Court is skeptical the IDEA relinquishes a public school from its duty to 24 implement an interim IEP simply because a private school student, who previously attended public school with an operative IEP, transfers mid-year to a different public 25 school district. See Reg’l Sch. Unit 51 v. Doe, 920 F. Supp. 2d 168, 202 (D. Me. 2013) 26 (“[T]he District makes too much of the fact that federal and state regulations spell out the obligation of a school district to provide a FAPE to, and adopt or develop and 27 implement an IEP for, children transferring from one public agency to another within 28 the same school year, but not children transferring from private schools.”). 1 17). Consequently, Parents fail to meet their burden to show ALJ Lucier erroneously

2 concluded MBUSD was not required to have an interim IEP in place for Student during

3 the 2022–23 school year.

4 Accordingly, the ALJ Decision is AFFIRMED as to issue five.

5 G. Issue Six: Failure to Convene an Early Resolution Meeting

6 ALJ Lucier held MBUSD’s failure to hold an early resolution meeting with

7 Parents within fifteen days from the date Parents filed their initial due process complaint

8 procedurally violated the IDEA. (Id. at 26). However, ALJ Lucier also held “Student

9 failed to present evidence as to the impact of this delay on Student or Parents.” (Id.).

10 34 C.F.R. § 300.510 prescribes a process to resolve a parent’s due process

11 complaint; it requires a school district to convene a meeting with the student’s parent

12 or guardian and relevant IEP team members within fifteen days after receiving notice

13 of the due process complaint. 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a)(1). The meeting’s purpose is for

14 the parties to discuss the due process complaint and the supporting factual allegations

15 so the district may attempt to resolve the dispute. 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a)(2). Section 16 300.510(b) provides that if the district fails to convene the resolution meeting specified 17 in section (a) within fifteen days after receiving notice, “the parent may seek the 18 intervention of a hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timeline.” 34 C.F.R. 19 § 300.510(b)(5). 20 Parents argue the “circumstances that led to the Parents’ decision to file a 21 complaint could have potentially been addressed prior to the start of the 2023–2024 22 school year if the resolution session had been held in a timely manner.” (PPB at 23). 23 MBUSD argues ALJ Lucier correctly decided MBUSD’s procedural violation did not 24 deprive Student of education benefits or impede Parents’ opportunity to participate in 25 the IEP process. (DOB at 23). 26 ALJ Lucier correctly held MBUSD procedurally violated the IDEA when it failed 27 to convene a resolution meeting by June 24, 2023—fifteen days after Student filed his 28 initial (and later voluntarily dismissed) due process complaint on June 9, 2023. (ALJ 1 Decision at 26). Further, ALJ Lucier correctly found Parents failed to present evidence

2 that such delay impeded Student’s right to a FAPE, significantly impeded Parents’

3 opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, or deprived Student of

4 educational benefits. (Id.). Thus, ALJ Lucier found Parents failed to carry their burden

5 to show the procedural violation resulted in a substantive violation; nothing in the record

6 contradicts this finding. Moreover, Parents’ argument—that had the resolution meeting

7 occurred the parties “could have addressed” Parents’ various requests to MBUSD—is

8 unpersuasive. As ALJ Lucier found, Parents chose not to “seek the intervention of a

9 hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timeline”—the remedy the regulation

10 explicitly permits. 34 C.F.R. 300.510(b)(5). Moreover, MBUSD held the resolution

11 meeting on July 18, 2023, and the parties were unable to resolve their dispute. (See AR

12 Vol. III at 409–10).

13 Parents thus fail to meet their burden to show ALJ Lucier erroneously concluded

14 MBUSD’s procedural violation did not result in a substantive violation. Accordingly,

15 the ALJ Decision is AFFIRMED as to issue six. 16 H. Issue Seven: Failure to Timely Develop an IEP for the 2023–24 17 School Year 18 ALJ Lucier held MBUSD was not required to have an IEP in place for Student 19 by the beginning of the 2023–24 school year because (1) absent evidence to show 20 Parents consented to the initiation of special education services in a prior district, 21 MBUSD was not required to consider Student a child with a disability under the IDEA 22 and (2) based on the timing of Parents’ requests for an IEP assessment and team 23 meeting, MBUSD would not have been required to complete the assessment process 24 prior to the start of the 2023–24 school year. (ALJ Decision at 28). 25 Parents argue “evidence was presented at [the] hearing identifying Student as a 26 child eligible for special education and previously receiving special education services 27 via an IEP.” (PPB at 24). Thus, according to Parents, MBUSD was required to have an 28 IEP in place for Student by the beginning of the 2023–24 school year. (Id.). MBUSD 1 argues ALJ Lucier was correct to hold evidence of consent was never provided to

2 MBUSD. (DOB at 23).

3 The IDEA requires a school district to, at the beginning of each school year, have

4 in effect an IEP for each child with a disability within its jurisdiction. 20 U.S.C.

5 § 1414(d)(2)(A); Cal. Educ. Code § 56344(c). However, as discussed above in Section

6 II.D, ALJ Lucier correctly concluded that absent evidence to show Parents previously

7 consented to special education services for Student, MBUSD was not required to

8 consider him a child with a disability under the IDEA. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.300(b)(3),

9 (d)(4); Cal. Educ. Code §§ 56346(c), (g). Consequently, MBUSD was not required to

10 have an IEP in place for Student based solely on the documents Parents’ attorneys

11 provided to MBUSD which, as discussed above, failed to evince RBUSD implemented

12 the IEP it prepared in November 2021.

13 As discussed in Section II.D, however, MBUSD was required to assess Student

14 and make an offer of a FAPE once Parents so requested. See Capistrano, 21 F.4th at

15 1138. Nevertheless, ALJ Lucier correctly concluded MBUSD was not required to 16 complete the assessment process and develop an IEP prior to start of the 2023–24 school 17 year given the date Parents requested the assessment. (ALJ Decision at 28). 18 As discussed in Section II.C, ALJ Lucier correctly found that MBUSD received 19 confirmation of Student’s residency and Parents’ request for an offer of a FAPE on 20 April 26, 2023. (ALJ Decision at 12). Thus, MBUSD was obligated to provide Parents 21 with a written assessment plan by May 11, 2023. (Id.). ALJ Lucier then correctly found 22 the California Education Code requires a school district to complete its assessment and 23 develop an IEP within sixty days from the date a parent consents to an assessment 24 plan—excluding “days between regular school sessions, terms, or days of school 25 vacation in excess of five schooldays.” Cal. Educ. Code § 56344(a); (ALJ Decision at 26 12). ALJ Lucier thus correctly found MBUSD was not required to complete the 27 assessment and provide an IEP to parents before the 2022–23 school year ended on June 28 16, 2023, as parents consented to the assessment on September 7, 2023. (AR Vol. I at 1 303–04). Consequently, ALJ Lucier correctly held MBUSD did not deny Student a

2 FAPE by failing to have an IEP in place at the beginning of the 2023–24 school year.

3 Parents thus fail to carry their burden to show ALJ Lucier erred in her decision

4 on issue seven. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS the ALJ Decision as to issue seven.

5 I. Remedies

6 ALJ Lucier held Plaintiff prevailed on issue one and MBUSD prevailed on issues

7 two through seven. (ALJ Decision at 28–30). ALJ Lucier consequently ordered

8 MBUSD to provide training to Mira Costa administrators regarding MBUSD’s

9 obligation to assess and make a FAPE available to parentally placed private school

10 students residing within MBUSD. (Id. at 33).

11 In their Principal Trial Brief, Parents argue ALJ Lucier erred by denying them

12 reimbursement for Student’s private placement during the 2023–24 school year. (PPB

13 at 25–26). MBUSD, in its Principal Trial Brief, argues (1) the training remedy ALJ

14 Lucier ordered was inappropriate, (2) Parents are not entitled to reimbursement, (3)

15 Parents are not entitled to attorneys’ fees, and (4) its statutory offer of settlement was 16 more favorable than the relief ultimately obtained by Parents. (DPB at 32–34). Parents 17 counter in their Opposition Brief that (1) ALJ Lucier ordered an appropriate remedy, 18 (2) Parents are entitled to attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party on an issue of 19 significance, and (3) MBUSD’s settlement offer was overly broad and thus disqualified 20 as a Statutory Offer of Settlement as defined under 20 U.S.C. § 1414(i)(3)(D). (POB at 21 9–14).11 22 The IDEA provides broad equitable authority to courts and hearing officers to 23 grant appropriate relief to remedy a school district’s failure to provide a FAPE to a 24 disabled child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 25 230, 244 n.11 (2009) (holding § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) applies to hearing officers). 26 “Appropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated

27 11 The Court defers ruling on Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees until the issue is 28 fully briefed. (See Dkt. No. 75). 1 within the meaning of the IDEA.” Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3,

2 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir. 1994). In determining what relief is appropriate, the

3 hearing officer must review the conduct of both parties. Id. at 1496.

4 1. Training for Mira Costa Personnel

5 ALJ Lucier carefully examined the parties’ conduct and ordered a remedy that

6 adequately addressed MBUSD’s conduct which led to the denial of a FAPE to Student

7 in the 2022–23 school year. (ALJ Decision 31–33).

8 On May 15, 2023, Norris emailed Vegas to confirm she had received enrollment

9 paperwork for Student but set it aside because it lacked a completed online enrollment

10 form. (AR Vol. III at 42). The paperwork included a new student enrollment checklist

11 with G.C.’s handwritten note that attempted to explain she wanted to “register[]

12 [Student] with the district because he has an IEP.” (Id. at 43). ALJ Lucier held

13 MBUSD’s confusion at receiving such a request for a private school student for which

14 MBUSD had no records caused MBUSD’s failure to timely provide Parents with an

15 assessment plan. (ALJ Decision at 33). Reasoning that Mira Costa lacked an efficient 16 system for processing requests from parents for students it has no records for, ALJ 17 Lucier determined staff training was an appropriate remedy. (Id.). The Court agrees. 18 In examining both parties’ conduct, the Court finds both bear some responsibility 19 for the delayed assessment plan. MBUSD should have been more proactive regarding 20 the incomplete paperwork; however, Parents, through their attorneys, failed to clearly 21 address Mira Costa’s prompt, repeated insistence it had no records for Student. Training 22 ensures Mira Costa is better prepared to avoid this situation in the future. 23 Accordingly, the ALJ Decision is AFFIRMED as to the personnel training 24 remedy ordered. 25 2. Tuition Reimbursement 26 ALJ Lucier carefully examined the relevant regulations and held reimbursement 27 for tuition and related transportation costs Parents incurred for the 2023–24 school year 28 was inappropriate. (ALJ Decision at 32–33). 1 Parents who believe their child was denied a FAPE and thus unilaterally enroll

2 their child in private school may seek reimbursement for tuition and related costs. 34

3 C.F.R. § 148(c); see also Landers, 2023 WL 67874480, at *3. However, as ALJ Lucier

4 noted, the plain language of § 300.148(c) requires the hearing officer to find the school

5 district “had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to that

6 enrollment.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c) (emphasis added); see also C.H. v. Cape Henlopen

7 School Dist., 606 F.3d 59, 72 (3rd Cir. 2010) (“The IDEA was not intended to fund

8 private school tuition for the children of parents who have not first given the public

9 school a good faith opportunity to meet its obligations.”). Moreover, “[b]because

10 reimbursement is a form of discretionary equitable relief, a court must also assess the

11 reasonableness of both parties’ conduct to determine whether reimbursement is

12 warranted.” D.R. ex rel. R.R. v Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 56 F.4th 636, 647

13 (9th Cir. 2022). A relevant factor is the “parties’ level of cooperation during the IEP

14 process.” Id.

15 Reimbursement is inappropriate here because, as ALJ Lucier reasoned, 16 § 300.148(c) required Parents to timely seek an offer of FAPE prior to enrolling their 17 child in private school. (ALJ Decision at 32–33); 34 C.F.R § 300.148(c). ALJ Lucier 18 correctly found Student attended Westmark for the 2022–23 school year and Parents 19 signed an enrollment contract and paid a nonrefundable deposit for the 2023–24 school 20 year on March 23, 2023—prior to their first contact with MBUSD on April 3, 2023. 21 (AR Vol. III at 101–07). Further, G.C. testified she would not move Student mid-year; 22 as discussed in Section II.H, Parents were not entitled to an offer of FAPE from 23 MBUSD until the 2023–24 school year had already begun based on the date of their 24 April 2023 request. ALJ Lucier thus concluded the evidence presented strongly 25 suggested Parents intended to keep Student enrolled at Westmark regardless of whether 26 MBUSD offered Student a FAPE. (ALJ Decision at 32–33). 27 Parents’ conduct also supports ALJ Lucier’s conclusion that reimbursement is 28 inappropriate. As discussed, Parents, through their attorneys, initially confused 1 | MBSUD as to what they sought for Student and were less than prompt in clearing up 2 | that confusion. Parents attempted to request Student’s records, an assessment plan, and 3 | an IEP team meeting on April 3; MBUSD responded the next day and stated in bold 4 | print it had no records for Student. (AR Vol. I at 314-16). Rather than asking what 5 | MBUSD would need to facilitate the process, Goldstein responded, “Thank you, 6 | received and acknowledge. We await the District’s IEP meeting notice and assessment 7 || plan as requested in the letter.” (AR Vol. I at 314-16). MBUSD reiterated the 8 || unaddressed issue stated in its prior response to Parents’ attorneys—that they had no 9 | records for Student—on April 14 through email and voicemail, yet Parents failed to 10 | provide the required documents until April 26. Ud. at 314-16, 376). Parents conduct is 11 | thus inconsistent with their stated goal of receiving an offer of FAPE prior to the start 12 | of the 2023-24 school year. MBUSD surely should not have set aside the paperwork it 13 | received on April 26, but such conduct occurred after Parents had already delayed the 14 | process by over three weeks. Consequently, the parties’ conduct supports ALJ Lucier’s 15 | conclusion that retmbursement is an inappropriate remedy here. 16 Accordingly, the ALJ Decision is AFFRIMED as to the denial of tuition and 17 | transportation cost reimbursement for the 2023—24 school year. 18 | Il. CONCLUSION 19 For the reasons set forth above, the ALJ Decision is AFFIRMED. This order 20 | constitutes notice of entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. 91 | Pursuant to Local Rule 58-6, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this order, and its 22 | entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | Dated: November 19, 2025 (pdf2— 77 HON. ANDRE BIROTTE JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28 27