A.L.

A.L. v. Pleasanton Unified School District

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 28, 20223:22-cv-03036California5,046 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

26 Plaintiffs allege the following: 27 A.L. is a minor child with Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome. Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶ 26. She “requires highly specialized and highly individualized supports to participate in the world,” including to help her learn and succeed at school. Id. ¶ 29. This case is only the latest in a long history of actions, in state administrative processes and in federal court, that seek to give A.L. the specialized attention and equipment she needs to learn and thrive. See id. ¶¶ 38–39, 42–45, 77–79, 83–100. In July 2019, A.L.’s father, Joseph Lain, entered into an agreement with PUSD on behalf of A.L., recognizing that CCCOE’s Mauzy School would be her educational placement. Id. ¶ 30. In August 2019, A.L. was offered an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”), which codified the July 2019 agreement and stated, among other things, that A.L. was entitled to an individual nurse/aide, speech therapy, physical therapy, vision therapy, and adaptive physical education. Id. ¶¶ 35–36. In October 2019, Lain filed a due process complaint with the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), alleging…

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.