E.M.

E.M. Ex Rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District Office of Administrative Hearings

Good Law
758 F.3d 1162·2014 WL 3409071·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13428
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 15, 201412-15743California7,942 words

Opinion

Opinion

Callahan, J.

In 2004, before E.M. entered the fourth grade, he was first tested for a learning disability. Through this lengthy litigation it has been established that E.M. has an auditory processing disorder or a central auditory processing disorder. However, in the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005, E.M.’s school district, the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (“PVUSD”) tested E.M. and determined that, despite his learning disability, E.M. was not eligible for special education services. Subsequently, as a result of further testing procured by E.M.’s parents, PVUSD determined in February 2008 that E.M. did qualify for special education. Shortly thereafter, E.M. moved to another school district which also recognized that he qualified for special education.

Meanwhile, E.M. filed an administrative complaint with the Special Education Division of the California Office of Administrative Hearings. When the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision in favor of PVUSD, E.M., through his parents (the “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that E.M. had been denied a “Free and Appropriate Public…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.