Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Ass'n v. Cal. Dep't of Educ.

• Citation: 258 F.Supp.3d 1114
• Decision Date: 14 June 2017
• Docket Number: No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC.,2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC.
• Parties: MORGAN HILL CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

258 F.Supp.3d 1114

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

No. 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed June 14, 2017

Filed June 15, 2017

Rony Sagy, Barbara Louise Gately, Sagy Law Associates, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Julia R. Jackson, Niromi W. Pfeiffer, R. Matthew Wise, Ismael Armendariz Castro, Grant Lien, Attorney General's Office of

the State of California, Paul E. Lacy, California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER

Kimberly Mueller, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Two associations of concerned parents allege in this lawsuit that the California Department of Education (CDE) does not ensure children with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education. They claim this failure violates federal and state law and ask the court to enjoin CDE from any future violations. CDE disagrees and moves for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Mot. J. on the Pleadings (MJOP), ECF No. 172. CDE's current motion parallels its previous motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which the court denied in March 2013. Order March 29, 2013, ECF No. 25. CDE explains its renewed challenge by citing two intervening decisions: Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015), and M.M. v. Lafayette School District , 767 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2014). It also raises a new defense under the Tenth Amendment.

Plaintiffs separately move for sanctions. Mot. Sanctions, ECF No. 206. The magistrate judge declined to resolve this question and referred plaintiffs' motion to this court because the motion is based on CDE's conduct before this court. Order August 17, 2016, ECF No. 229. This court accepts the referral.

The court held a hearing on October 7, 2016, to address both motions. Rony Sagy appeared for the plaintiffs; Grant Lien appeared for CDE. As explained below, the court DENIES CDE's motion for judgment on the pleadings and DENIES plaintiffs' motion for sanctions.

Below, the court addresses each motion in turn.

I. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

A. Background

1. The IDEA

Both CDE's motion and plaintiffs' complaint concern primarily the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The IDEA has its roots in the more awkwardly named Education for All Handicapped Act, originally passed in 1970. Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast , 546 U.S. 49, 51–52, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) ; Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified Sch. Dist. , 822 F.3d 1105, 1109 (9th Cir. 2016). At that time, many public schools had neglected the needs of American schoolchildren with disabilities. Schaffer , 546 U.S. at 52, 126 S.Ct. 528. Millions of children either were excluded entirely or left to suffer in class with undiagnosed and unaddressed disabilities. Timothy , 822 F.3d at 1110. Congress intended the IDEA to reverse this history. Schaffer , 546 U.S. at 52, 126 S.Ct. 528.

Congress passed the IDEA exercising its power under the Spending Clause.¹ Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy , 548 U.S. 291, 295, 126 S.Ct. 2455, 165 L.Ed.2d 526 (2006). States receive federal funds on the condition they comply with Congress's goals and procedures when providing an education to children with disabilities. Id. ; Timothy , 822 F.3d at 1110. One of these goals is the provision of a free appropriate public education, known as a "FAPE," to all children who have disabilities and are between the ages of three and twenty-one. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A) ; Timothy , 822 F.3d at 1110. Other provisions require states to set scheduled goals for the education of children with disabilities, 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(2) ; to identify and evaluate students with disabilities, id. §§ 1412(a)(3), (a)(7) ; to develop individualized plans for each child's education, id. § 1412(a)(4) ; to avoid the separate education of children with disabilities, if possible, id. § 1412(a)(5) ; and to monitor local agencies' efforts, see generally id. § 1416.

Cooperation between parents and schools is at the IDEA's center. S c haffer , 546 U.S. at 53, 126 S.Ct. 528. Schools must work with the parents of each disabled child to create a program for the child's individualized education. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a) – (c) ; Schaffer , 546 U.S. at 53, 126 S.Ct. 528. The IDEA allows schools flexibility in creating this program, but it guards parents' collaborative role by ensuring their access to information. Timothy , 822 F.3d at 1112. For example, schools must thoroughly document the data used in evaluating students' disabilities and must allow parents to examine their children's records. Id. (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1) and (4) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(c)(1) ).

The IDEA also prescribes methods for resolving disputes. Fairfield–Suisun Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Dep't of Educ. , 780 F.3d 968, 969 (9th Cir. 2015). As a condition of receiving federal funds, states must provide "an opportunity for any party to present a complaint ... with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child...." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A). If a state receives a complaint under this provision, the parents or the school district must be allowed "an impartial due process hearing" before a state or local agency. Id. § 1415(f)(1)(A). In California, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) conducts these hearings. Fairfield–Suisun , 780 F.3d at 969 ; M.M. v. Lafayette School Dist. , 681 F.3d 1082, 1085 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2012). The OAH is a state agency within the Department of General Services and is independent of the CDE. Fairfield–Suisun , 780 F.3d at 969 ; Lafayette , 681 F.3d at 1085 & n.3. Anyone aggrieved by the result of an impartial hearing may bring a civil action in a state court or in a federal district court, regardless of the amount in controversy. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).

States that receive IDEA funding must adopt a second procedure to address complaints, as detailed in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 – .153. See also Fairfield–Suisun , 780 F.3d at 969. Under federal regulations, a state educational agency must accept complaints submitted under this second procedure, review all relevant information, and render an independent written determination of the complaint's merits. 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a). The IDEA and its regulations do not specify whether a party who is dissatisfied with the state's decision in this respect may obtain further review in federal court. Fairfield–Suisun , 780 F.3d at 969. The Ninth Circuit recently reaffirmed that a local agency cannot sue the state in federal court if it is dissatisfied with the state's decision or procedure. Id. at 970–71 (citing Lake Wash. Sch. Dist. No. 414 v. Office of Superintendent of Pub. Instruction , 634 F.3d 1065, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2011) ). By contrast, the Circuit has not decided whether parents can sue the state in this context. See id. It has concluded that parents may exhaust their administrative remedies, a separate prerequisiteto review in federal court, by completing this second complaint proceeding. See Christopher S. ex rel. Rita S. v. Stanislaus Cty. Office of Educ. , 384 F.3d 1205, 1209–14 (9th Cir. 2004). The Circuit therefore has recognized a parent's private right of action implicitly, as this court previously summarized. See Order Mar. 29, 2013 (2013 Order) 10, ECF No. 25. California receives federal funds under the IDEA. Id. at 2.

2. Plaintiffs' Claims

The plaintiffs in this case, Morgan Hill Concerned Parents Association and Concerned Parents Association, are unincorporated associations of parents of children with disabilities in California public schools. First Am. Compl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 6. They claim California systemically denies children with disabilities a free appropriate public education and so falls short of its obligations under the IDEA. They filed a complaint in this court in 2011 and an amended complaint a few months later. 2013 Order 3. Their amended complaint alleges three broad categories of systemic IDEA violations, which are summarized as follows:

(1) The CDE monitors local school districts' efforts to comply with the IDEA only superficially. It does not ask for meaningful data or verify the accuracy of data it receives. It analyzes data selectively and turns a blind eye to negative trends. First Am. Compl. 13–28.

(2) The CDE does not truly investigate the complaints it receives. In its investigations, it relies on unverified reports prepared by allegedly deficient school districts. Id. at 28–31.

(3) The CDE takes no action to meaningfully enforce school districts' obligations under the IDEA. It requires only that school districts adopt policies, not implement those policies, and it is satisfied with shallow promises of future effort. It does not verify compliance, and when it does, it does so by sampling student data after advanced warning. School districts can therefore sanitize their records. Id. at 31–32.

Plaintiffs assert six claims on the basis of these allegations. Their first four claims allege violations of the IDEA, federal regulations adopted under the IDEA, and accompanying sections of the California Education Code. See id. ¶¶ 82, 84, 86, 88. These four claims are based on CDE's alleged failures to ensure school districts provide a free appropriate public education, to monitor local school districts, to investigate problems, and to enforce the law.

Plaintiffs' fifth claim asserts a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability "under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). In regulations adopted under section 504, states must ensure students with disabilities are provided with a free appropriate public education, regardless of the nature or severity of their disability. See 34...