A.L. v. Pleasanton Unified Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2022
• Docket Number: 22-cv-03036-CRB
• Parties: A.L., et al., Plaintiffs, v. PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

A.L., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-cv-03036-CRB

United States District Court, N.D. California

October 28, 2022

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff A.L., by and through her parent and guardian ad litem, Joseph Lain (“Plaintiffs”) bring various claims against two public educational entities, the Pleasanton Unified School District (“PUSD”) and the Contra Costa County Office of Education (“CCCOE”; together, the “Entity Defendants”) and their employees, for failure to provide A.L. with an appropriate education. Both PUSD and CCCOE move to dismiss the complaint. CCCOE Mot. (dkt. 24); PUSD Mot. (dkt. 25). As explained below, finding this matter suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court DENIES PUSD's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' claim for denial of FAPE (claim II), GRANTS both motions to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' state-law claims (claims III, IV, and V), GRANTS both motions for a more definite statement as to Plaintiffs' claim for a “Declaration Against Individuals” (claim VI), and DENIES both motions for a more definite statement as to all other claims.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege the following:

A.L. is a minor child with Wolf-Hirschhorn Syndrome. Compl. (dkt. 1) ¶ 26. She

1

“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 denial of free, appropriate public education (FAPE), because the school had failed to provide a nurse/aide pursuant to the August IEP. Id. ¶ 38. In January 2020, the OAH found that these claims had merit. Id. ¶ 39. Following further erosion of A.L.'s educational opportunities as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, in April 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit against PUSD, CCCOE, and various individual defendants in the Northern District. Id. ¶¶ 40, 42; see also Lain v. Pleasanton Unified Sch. Dist., 20-cv-2350 (N.D. Cal.). While that action was pending, in July 2020, Plaintiffs again sought relief from the OAH. Compl. ¶ 45.

In March 2021, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶¶ 46-49; id. Ex. 2. In it, PUSD and CCCOE agreed to particular terms to further A.L.'s education at the Mauzy School, including hiring a back-up nurse, holding collaboration meetings with Lain to discuss A.L.'s schooling and care, and purchasing particular equipment. Id. ¶ 53. In exchange, Plaintiffs were required to release their claims against PUSD and CCCOE and seek dismissal of the pending federal and OAH actions. Id. ¶ 58.

Almost immediately, Plaintiffs noticed compliance issues. In March 2021, A.L.'s nurse/aide quit, and Defendants failed to replace them promptly, instead hiring a nurse to

2

attend only to A.L.'s health requirements but not her learning needs. Id. ¶ 59. Defendants had also failed to supply particular equipment under the terms of the March 2021 Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶ 63. Though Defendants made attempts to provide for A.L.'s needs-by providing a 1:1 educational support aide, for example-such arrangements did not last, and Jennifer Rickard, PUSD's Assistant Special Education Director, informed Plaintiffs that A.L. would not be receiving a 1:1 aide when she returned to school inperson in Fall 2021. Id. ¶¶ 66-67. After A.L.'s doctor recommended that she remain at home in Fall 2021 due to a rise in COVID-19 cases, Defendants offered Plaintiffs “home hospital” schooling, which amounted to 60 minutes of instruction each day. Id. ¶¶ 71-74. Plaintiffs consented to the offer, “just to get something.” Id. ¶¶ 75 & n.18.

In November 2021, Plaintiffs once again filed a due process complaint with the OAH, alleging violations of IDEA and FAPE, as well as contract violations relating to the March 2021 Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶ 77. In January 2022, Plaintiffs filed a notice of claim with PUSD and CCCOE for fraud and contract violations arising out of the March 2021 Settlement Agreement. Id. ¶ 82. In February 2022, OAH dismissed Plaintiffs' most recent due process complaint, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' claims. Id. ¶¶ 92-95.

Plaintiffs bring this suit against both PUSD and CCCOE, along with many of their employees: David Haglund, the Superintendent of PUSD; Ed Diolazo, the Assistant Superintendent of PUSD; Kenneth Goeken, the Director of Special Education for PUSD; Jennifer Rickard, the Assistant Director of Special Education for PUSD; Lynn Mackey, the Senior Director of Student Programs for CCCOE;^[1] Nick Burger, the Senior Director of Student Programs for CCCOE; and Thomas Scruggs, the Director of Student Programs for CCCOE (together, the “Individual Defendants”). Id. ¶¶ 12-22.

Plaintiffs bring six claims: A claim under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2) of the IDEA

3

seeking reversal of the February 2022 OAH decision (claim I); a claim alleging denial of FAPE, seemingly^[2] against the Entity Defendants (claim II); a claim for breach of the March 2021 Settlement Agreement against all defendants (claim III); a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to the March 2021 Settlement Agreement against all defendants (claim IV); a claim for fraud against all defendants (claim V); and a claim for a “Declaration Against Individuals” against the Individual Defendants (claim VI). See id. ¶¶ 104-46. On September 19, CCCOE filed its motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement on behalf of itself and its defendant employees, Mackey, Burger, and Scruggs. See CCCOE Mot. PUSD filed its motion on September 22.^[3] See PUSD Mot.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(6) applies when a complaint lacks either a “cognizable legal theory” or “sufficient facts alleged” under such a theory. Godecke v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 937 F.3d 1201, 1208 (9th Cir. 2019). Whether a complaint...