G.M. Ex Rel. Marchese v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
G.M. and his parents (“G.M.”) appeal a grant of summary judgment to the Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District (the “District”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.
1. The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err in refusing to enter a default judgment against the District for faffing to file a pleading responsive to the parents’ complaint within 10 days of service. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”) only required the District to “send to the parent a response” to the complaint. 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (c)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. 300.508(e). A due process hearing is the redress for an unsatisfactory response. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(l)(B)(ii).
2. The ALJ’s finding that G.M. was offered a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2009-2010 school year was supported by the evidence. G.M. was not denied any educational benefits; he remained in his preferred educational placement. See Doug C. v. Haw. Dep’t of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir.2013); A.M. ex rel. Marshall v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist., 627 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir.2010).
3. The ALJ properly considered the August 28, 2009 individualized…