A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69
| Decision Date | 03 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13–16239,13–16707.,s. 13–16239 |
| Parties | A.G., a student, by and through parents William Grundemann and Rhonda Grundemann; William Grundemann; and Rhonda Grundemann, individually, Plaintiffs–Appellants/ Cross–Appellees, v. PARADISE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 69; James P. Lee, Dr./ Superintendent; Nancy Case ; Julie Bacon ; Anne Greenberg; Mark Lane; Sue M. Skidmore, Board Members; Laura Bistrow, PVUSD Special Education Director; Elaine Jacobs, Principal at Vista Verde Middle School; Robert Kurklan, School Psychologist at Vista Verde Middle School; Karen Hudson, Teacher at Vista Verde Middle School; Lorna Green, Principal of Roadrunner School ; Debbie Harper, Interventionist at Roadrunner School; Barbara Sickles, Interventionist at Roadrunner School; Judy Carlyle, Paraprofessional at Roadrunner School; Jennifer Wilson, Teacher at Roadrunner School; Cynthia Gilmore, Teacher at Roadrunner School, Defendants–Appellees/Cross–Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Richard J. Murphy, Law Office of Richard J. Murphy, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, Carly M. Christopher, Special Education Collaboration Project, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants/Cross–Appellees.
Erin H. Walz and R. Scott Currey, Udall Shumway PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendants–Appellees/Cross–Appellants. Kristen B. Proschold (argued), Baker & McKenzie LLP, Houston, TX; Barrie L. Brejcha, Yea–Jin Angela Chang, Jenny A. Austin, Angela C. Vigil, Baker & McKenzie LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Amicus Curiae Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.
Before: MORGAN CHRISTEN and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, Senior District Judge.*
A.G., a student eligible for special education services, and her parents appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment on claims of discrimination under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794
, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 –12134, as well as on their tort claims under Arizona state law against Paradise Valley Unified School District and related employees and principals (together "defendants"). Defendants cross-appeal the district court's order vacating taxation of costs. The parties settled other claims, including claims under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 –1491.
We reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' federal law claims, reverse in part the district court's order granting summary judgment on plaintiffs' state law claims, vacate the district court's order addressing costs, and remand for further proceedings.
This appeal implicates overlapping federal statutes addressing discrimination on the basis of disability. Specifically, we address the requirement that all children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"), and the distinct but overlapping features of FAPE set forth under the different statutory schemes. The related statutory schemes at issue here are the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400
–1491 ; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794 ; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 –12134. The parties entered into a settlement agreement that narrowed the scope of plaintiffs' claims so only claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are at issue, but we review all three statutes to clarify the different definitions and standards for FAPE that must be applied on remand. We also discuss plaintiffs' state law tort claims.
A.G. attended school in the Paradise Valley Unified School District at various times between 2002 and September of 2010. From August 17, 2009 through January 19, 2010, A.G. attended seventh grade at Vista Verde Middle School in the Uniquely Gifted Program for students with high IQs and one or more learning or behavioral disabilities. During that time, A.G. periodically demonstrated aggressive, disruptive, and noncompliant behavior. In November of 2009, A.G.'s Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") Team, which included herself and her parents, adopted an IEP setting forth various educational services that would be provided to A.G.1 Unfortunately, in December of 2009, A.G.'s behavior began to deteriorate. By January of 2010, she refused to go to class, destroyed school property, threatened to harm herself, wrote graffiti on a bathroom wall, and was uncooperative with a school resource officer, eventually physically striking that officer. A.G. was suspended from Vista Verde following the last incident.
In February 2010, A.G.'s IEP Team met and adopted an Addendum to A.G.'s IEP. Pursuant to the Addendum, A.G. was to be transferred to the Roadrunner School, a school primarily designed for children with emotional disturbances, where she was to participate in an assortment of counseling, behavior management, and special education programs. The IEP Addendum indicates that A.G.'s parents visited Roadrunner and agreed that it would be an appropriate placement for A.G., and that A.G.'s parents were informed that A.G. would not be restrained at Roadrunner unless she became a danger to herself or others.
A.G. demonstrated behavioral issues on her second day at Roadrunner. She resisted entering the school that day and had to be physically escorted onto the premises by staff members and led to the "Intervention Room." During that incident, A.G. kicked a paraprofessional in the face. Officer Lori Welsh, a city police officer who worked as off-duty security at the school, was summoned and she arrested A.G. for aggravated assault and criminal damage. Officer Welsh placed A.G. in handcuffs and detained her until her mother arrived to pick her up.
Later, on March 23, 2010, Officer Welsh was again summoned by one of A.G.'s teachers to escort A.G. to the Intervention Room. Officer Welsh attempted to handcuff A.G. for allegedly poking her in the eye, but A.G. resisted and eventually scratched Officer Welsh in the face and neck. Officer Welsh placed A.G. in an arm bar, applied handcuffs, and called for backup. A.G. was eventually arrested for aggravated assault, transported to the police precinct for booking, and placed in a juvenile detention room where she kicked the table and chair. After being transported to the Juvenile Court Center, A.G. was released to her parents. The charges stemming from both incidents were later dismissed, and A.G. returned to the Roadrunner School. She was eventually moved to the Howard S. Gray School, a private psychiatric school, at district expense.
On June 16, 2011, A.G. and her parents filed an administrative due process complaint with the Arizona Department of Education alleging that A.G. was denied a FAPE by the school district and its named representatives and employees (the "school district defendants"). The administrative complaint sought remedies available under the IDEA. Plaintiffs also filed the present action in Arizona state court against the school district defendants, the City of Phoenix, and Officer Welsh. Defendants later removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
In their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs alleged a denial of FAPE under the procedural provisions of the IDEA, Title II of the ADA, and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as well as various state common law tort claims against the school district defendants. Plaintiffs' principal discrimination-based claims relate to the school district's alleged failure to provide adequate accommodations, including a Functional Behavior Assessment ("FBA"), a Behavior Intervention Plan ("BIP"), and a full-time aide, and to the school district's decision to change A.G.'s placement from Vista Verde to the Roadrunner School. Plaintiffs alleged that having further accommodations would have allowed A.G. to continue attending Vista Verde.
In April of 2012, plaintiffs and the school district defendants entered into a settlement agreement releasing plaintiffs' IDEA claims. Among other things, the settlement released the school district defendants of all liability for administrative remedies available under the IDEA relating to the failure to provide A.G. with a FAPE under the terms of that Act.2 The settlement agreement expressly reserved plaintiffs' ability to proceed on their other federal claims pending in district court. On April 23, 2013, the district court also approved a settlement agreement dismissing all claims against the City of Phoenix and Officer Welsh.
In May of 2013, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district defendants on all remaining claims, dismissing plaintiffs' claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, as well as plaintiffs' state tort law claims. After the district court entered its final judgment, the school district submitted a bill of costs to the clerk of court and plaintiffs filed objections thereto. The clerk issued a Judgment on Taxation of Costs in favor of the school district, but plaintiffs later filed a motion seeking review of that judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)
and sanctions for defendants' allegedly improper reimbursement request. The district court agreed with plaintiffs and vacated the clerk's assessment of costs. Plaintiffs timely appealed the order granting summary judgment and defendants timely cross-appealed the order vacating costs.
The district court had jurisdiction over plaintiffs' federal law claims and plaintiffs' Rule 54(d)
motion concerning costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment. Mark H....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCarthy v. Scottsdale Unified Sch. Dist. No. 48, CV18-1351-PHX-DGC
...failure to provide or follow an appropriate BIP could affect provision of a FAPE. See , e.g. , A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69 , 815 F.3d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding a material issue of fact as to whether a BIP and personal aide were necessary to provide student a ......
-
Copart, Inc. v. Sparta Consulting, Inc.
...FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts are not disputed unless otherwise noted. See A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69 , 815 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir. 2016).A. The Parties and the Project Copart is a publicly traded company that sells more than two million vehicles per year. ......
-
Montoya v. City of San Diego
...held that damages claims brought by private plaintiffs under both Acts are permissible. See, e.g., A.G. v. Paradise Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 815 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that "a public entity can be liable for damages under § 504 if it intentionally or with deliberate indi......
-
Wormuth v. Lammersville Union Sch. Dist.
..."intentional discrimination" by showing either discriminatory animus or deliberate indifference. A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69 , 815 F.3d 1195, 1204 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations and quotation marks omitted). As discussed below, plaintiff's federal disability claims cannot ......