778 Fed.Appx. 107 (3rd Cir. 2019), 18-3440, M.G. v. North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School Board of Education

• Citation: 778 Fed.Appx. 107
• Opinion Judge: MATEY, Circuit Judge.
• Party Name: M.G. and D.G. On Behalf of M.G., Appellants v. NORTH HUNTERDON-VOORHEES REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION
• Attorney: Ira M. Fingles, Esq., Adam P. Wilson, Esq., Hinkle Fingles Prior & Fischer, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Plaintiffs - Appellants Teresa L. Moore, Esq., Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, NJ, for Defendant - Appellee
• Judge Panel: Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.
• Case Date: June 20, 2019
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 107

778 Fed.Appx. 107 (3rd Cir. 2019)

M.G. and D.G. On Behalf of M.G., Appellants

v.

NORTH HUNTERDON-VOORHEES REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

No. 18-3440

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

June 20, 2019

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 4, 2019

Editorial Note:

This opinion is not regarded as Precedents which bind the court under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure Rule 5.7. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Page 108

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 3:17-cv-12018), District Judge: Hon. Peter G. Sheridan

Ira M. Fingles, Esq., Adam P. Wilson, Esq., Hinkle Fingles Prior & Fischer, Lawrenceville, NJ, for Plaintiffs - Appellants

Teresa L. Moore, Esq., Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti, Morristown, NJ, for Defendant - Appellee

Before: JORDAN, BIBAS, and MATEY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION^[*]

MATEY, Circuit Judge.

This matter presents a challenge to the terms of Individualized Educational Plans ("IEP") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1401. Appellants, the parents of

Page 109

M.G., appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District Board of Education’s ("District") motion for summary judgment. Finding no error in the District Court’s conclusions, we will affirm.

I.

We begin by summarizing the facts. Since 2015, the District has provided M.G. services under an IEP. The District serves students from multiple municipalities in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, including the municipality where M.G. resides. Through M.G.’s first year of high school, a program suited to her needs was unavailable within the district. Instead, M.G. attended the Developmental Learning Center ("DLC") in Warren, New Jersey. In February 2016, the District issued a new IEP ("2016 IEP") requiring M.G. to attend a program in the District beginning with the 2016-17 school year. M.G.’s parents objected to the 2016 IEP and challenged the proposal ("2016 IEP Petition") with the New Jersey Department of Education (the "Department").

Under the IDEA, that challenge stayed the proposed transfer so M.G. remained enrolled at the DLC for the 2016-17 school year. In April 2017, while the 2016 IEP Petition was pending, the District issued a revised IEP ("2017 IEP") and again directed M.G. to attend a program in the District. M.G.’s parents filed a second challenge ("2017 IEP Petition") with the Department. As a result of this new petition, M.G. continued to attend DLC during the 2017-18 school year.

The Department transferred both the 2016 IEP Petition and 2017 IEP Petition to the Office of Administrative Law. An Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") consolidated the petitions and conducted a three-day hearing in August 2017. As the hearing took place after the 2016-17 school year, the ALJ found the objections to the 2016 IEP moot and reviewed only the 2017 IEP. The ALJ heard testimony from several witnesses, including multiple experts on behalf of both parties. The District’s witnesses included a school psychologist; a clinical psychologist and behavior specialist; and the Director of Special Education for the District. Appellants presented the testimony of M.G.’s father, as well as expert testimony from a clinical psychologist.

Following the hearing, the ALJ dismissed both petitions and concluded that the 2017 IEP provided M.G. with "significant learning and meaningful educational benefit[s] in light of M.G.’s individual needs and potential." (App. 245.) M.G.’s parents appealed the ALJ’s determination in federal court under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A), and the District Court granted summary judgment for the District. M.G.’s parents timely appealed.

II.

A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

Our analysis begins with an outline of the scope of our review. We have jurisdiction to review the final order of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under the IDEA, "[w]e review a district court’s findings of fact for clear error, but we exercise plenary review over the legal standards that the district court applies and over its legal conclusions." D.S. v. Bayonne Bd. of Educ., 602 F.3d 553, 564 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Mary T. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 575 F.3d 235, 242 (3d Cir. 2009)). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, after reviewing the evidence, the court of appeals is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Shore Reg’l High Sch. Bd. of Educ. v. P.S. ex rel. P.S., 381 F.3d 194, 199 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting

Page 110

Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1220 (3d Cir. 1993)).

B. Appellant’s Arguments

M.G.’s parents raise three arguments on appeal. First, they contend that the District...