N.N. v. Mountain View-Los Altos Union High Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 04 August 2022
• Docket Number: 20-cv-08010-VKD
• Parties: N.N., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

N.N., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

No. 20-cv-08010-VKD

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

August 4, 2022

ORDER RE IDEA APPEAL RE: DKT. NO. 55

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs N.N. and her mother T.T. filed this action against the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (“District”) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C §§ 1400, et seq.^[1]Plaintiffs contend that the District failed to identify N.N. as a student eligible for special education services in her sophomore year in high school, leading to her enrollment in an out-of-state private residential program where she attended the local public high school for her junior and senior years. Plaintiffs claim that the District denied N.N. a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for each of the three school years at issue, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, and 2019-2020. They seek reimbursement of expenses related to her private placement and other services, as well as their attorneys' fees and costs.

An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a decision in favor of the District. In their present appeal plaintiffs seek de novo review, arguing that the ALJ erred in several key respects.

The matter is fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 55, 56, 59, 61. Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers,^[2] the oral arguments presented, and the record evidence,^[3] the Court reverses the ALJ's decision in part and affirms it in part, and orders further briefing re plaintiffs' request for reimbursement of costs and for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.^[4]

I. BACKGROUND

During the 2016-2017 school year, N.N. was enrolled as a freshman at Los Altos High School (“LAHS”) within the District. Although she appeared to transition well to high school, in May 2017, at the end of her freshman year, N.N. told T.T. that she had been struggling with depression and feelings of wanting to hurt herself. After T.T. reached out to Galen Rosenberg, the vice principal assigned to N.N., Mr. Rosenberg notified N.N.'s teachers in a May 23, 2017 email that N.N. “has been going through a very difficult and emotional period recently. She has reached out to her family and to us for support.” AR^[5] 277. Mr. Rosenberg further noted, “We have referred her to supports available here and outside of LAHS.” Id. Around June 2017, N.N. began seeing Dr. Kapoor, a private therapist paid for by T.T. and insurance. AR 1795:4-10, 22-25; 1796:1-2. N.N. saw Dr. Kapoor at least once per week until around mid-May 2018. AR 1796:512; 1797:5-9; 2451:25-2452:5; 2506:8-14.

A. 2017-2018 School Year

1. N.N.'s educational experience

When she began her sophomore year (2017-2018) at LAHS, N.N. continued to struggle with symptoms of anxiety and depression. During the first quarter, N.N.'s grades reflected her poor academic performance: a B+ in chemistry, a D in algebra II, a D- in AP human geography, a C in Spanish and an F in an honors world literature course. AR 482. T.T. testified that Dr. Kapoor recommended that she reach out to LAHS for assistance. AR 1798:4-6.

On October 5, 2017, T.T. contacted Mr. Rosenberg for help, stating that N.N. “is feeling extremely overwhelm [sic] with the transition of 9th grade to 10th grade. She has stressed to her therapist and tutor this feeling of not being able to catch up or enough time because of a lot of homework.” AR 277, 1797:10-23. Mr. Rosenberg offered to meet with T.T. to discuss N.N.'s “status at Los Altos and consider what kinds of changes would be in her interest.” AR 276. He met with T.T. on October 18, 2017 and discussed ways to alleviate the stress of N.N.'s homework and classes and the possibility of developing a 504 accommodations plan.^[6] AR 1798:7-24.

On October 26, 2017, T.T. emailed Mr. Rosenberg, attaching a note from N.N.'s pediatrician, who diagnosed N.N. with anxiety and noted that “this medical diagnosis is significant enough that it might require special accommodations in her educational program.” AR 275-76; 279; 1804:21-24. Mr. Rosenberg was out of the office at that time; and when T.T. called the school to follow up on her email, she was connected to Nicolas Betancur, LAHS's school psychologist. AR 1806:23-1807:11. Mr. Betancur testified that he discussed special education with T.T. at that time, noting that he suggested that T.T. “start with the 504 plan but to be aware that special ed[ucation] support may be necessary down the road”; and that T.T. “should be in touch with [Mr. Rosenberg] to first problem solve the 504 [plan] and inquire about a special ed[ucation] eval[uation] if more is needed.” AR 994; 2122:22-2123:17. Mr. Betancur did not provide T.T. with a copy of the IDEA procedural safeguards. AR 2124:14-16.

On November 15, 2017, the District convened a meeting and developed a 504 plan for N.N. AR 281. Mr. Rosenberg testified that the District's normal procedure was to provide parents receiving a 504 plan with documentation, including a brochure “that describes what eligibility means, what 504 plans are, what IDEA is, what special education services are.” AR 1225:7-10. T.T. received a package of information from LAHS regarding N.N.'s 504 plan, including brochures on outside services and programs. AR 1809:1-11. She testified that she had reviewed so many different documents at that time, she does not recall whether the package included a document with information about IDEA procedural safeguards. AR 1809:19-23. T.T. further testified that at that time, no one from the District explained to her that she had a right to contest the District's 504 plan or informed her that she had a right to request a special education assessment. AR 1809:24-1810:1, 15-20.

The District's 504 plan identified N.N.'s disability as “[a]nxiety” and noted that “[a]nxiety limits learning.” AR 281. N.N.'s 504 plan included three accommodations: “extensions on assignments that are arranged with the teacher”; “extra time on tests up to 1.5” and the ability to “test in a separate space” with details to be arranged with each teacher; and monthly meetings between N.N. and each of her teachers. Id. Additionally, in consultation with T.T., it was agreed that N.N. would drop the honors world literature class and would enroll in a regular world literature course the following semester. AR 968; 1056; 1232:12-16; 1815:16-22. Mr. Rosenberg testified that at the time of the 504 plan meeting, he felt a 504 plan was appropriate for N.N. AR 1224:11-22. Noting that N.N. is not the only student with this set of challenges, Mr. Rosenberg testified that the typical process for students diagnosed with anxiety that appeared to be affecting their schoolwork was to first create a 504 plan. AR 1224:14-22.

N.N. ended the first semester of her sophomore year with a C- in chemistry, Ds in algebra II, AP human geography and Spanish, and no grade in the honors word literature course that was dropped. AR 482.

During the second semester, in February 2018, N.N.'s teachers emailed one another and Mr. Betancur regarding their concerns about her academic performance. Florence Wu, N.N.'s algebra teacher, remarked, “I have been worrying about her and her low grades thus far for 2nd semester. Towards the end of 1st semester after we had all met, I observed that she had renewed focus and had made some marked improvement.” AR 968. However, Ms. Wu noted that with the start of the second semester, “[N.N.] appears to have reverted.” Id. While Ms. Wu observed that N.N. appeared to be “happy and very social in class,” she reported N.N. also was “not engaged in the lesson at all” and Ms. Wu “regularly need[ed] to ask her to pay attention and to stop being off-task with her table mates[.]” AR 999. Ms. Wu noted that N.N. asked to leave the room to get a drink of water or go to the restroom and usually returned within 5-10 minutes. Id. On one occasion, however, N.N. and another classmate left the room at around the same time and did not return for over 15 minutes. Ms. Wu did not know where they were during that time and told them that they were not to do that again. Id. Academically, Ms. Wu reported that N.N. was “essentially bombing all [of Ms. Wu's] assessments,” had “not taken advantage of opportunities for corrections or retake exams,” did not come to any of Ms. Wu's tutorial sessions or after-school sessions for extra help, and seemed to “hide her lack of understanding rather than face it.” AR 999-1000.

Trina Mattson, N.N.'s chemistry teacher, stated that although N.N. “did fine” during the first semester, “currently she is failing, not turning many assignments in, and missing class a lot 1st period due to her appointments.” AR 968. During the 2017-2018 school year, N.N. missed 28 periods of chemistry and was tardy 16 times. AR 480, 1344:9-16. Ms. Mattson understood from T.T. that N.N. was missing classes due to medical appointments. AR 1344:24-1345:3. Ms. Mattson testified that N.N.'s absences mostly impacted N.N.'s lab grades, as chemistry lab work required students to be present in class. AR 1345:13-17. Ms. Mattson did not believe that N.N.'s absences impacted her overall learning in chemistry because N.N. had generally been getting B grades on tests and quizzes. However, Ms. Mattson noted that N.N.'s performance on tests and quizzes had declined during the second semester compared to the first semester. AR 1344:171346:2; 1347:18-25.

Kelly Coble, N.N.'s human geography teacher, observed that N.N “seems to be happier in class-she likes the group she sits with and seems genuinely interested in the material and class activities.” AR 969. However, Ms. Coble noted that “very little (well...