744 Fed.Appx. 529 (9th Cir. 2018), 17-16705, Soto v. Clark County School District
|Citation:||744 Fed.Appx. 529|
|Party Name:||Valerie SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||Gregory D. Ivie, Attorney, Ivie Law Group, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff - Appellant Phoebe Vincentia Redmond, Esquire, Clark County School District, Office of the General Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant - Appellee Selene A. Almazan-Altobelli, Esquire, Council of Parent Attorneys and Ad...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 05, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted November 16, 2018 San Francisco, California
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, James C. Mahan, Senior District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-2063-JCM-NJK
Gregory D. Ivie, Attorney, Ivie Law Group, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff - Appellant
Phoebe Vincentia Redmond, Esquire, Clark County School District, Office of the General Counsel, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant - Appellee
Selene A. Almazan-Altobelli, Esquire, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Towson, MD, Catherine Merino Reisman, Reisman Carolla Gran LLP, Haddonfield, NJ, Ellen Saideman, Ellen Saideman, Barrington, RI, for Amicus Curiae Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and THACKER,[*] Circuit Judges.
On January 22, 2016, Valerie Soto ("Appellant"), as guardian of Y.D., filed a due
process complaint with the Clark County School District ("District"), along with a request for an administrative hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). The administrative hearing began May 2, 2016. Two days later, prior to the issuance of a decision, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which Appellant "agree[d] that all issues" in her complaint had been resolved and "withdr[e]w [her] request for an impartial due process hearing, with prejudice."
Appellant then filed this action in district court against the District alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellant concedes that exhaustion is...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP