Soto v. Clark County School District, 120518 FED9, 17-16705
|Party Name:||VALERIE SOTO, as Guardian Ad Litem of Y.D., a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 05, 2018|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted November 16, 2018 San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 2:16-cv-2063-JCM-NJK for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and THACKER, [**] Circuit Judges.
On January 22, 2016, Valerie Soto ("Appellant"), as guardian of Y.D., filed a due process complaint with the Clark County School District ("District"), along with a request for an administrative hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). The administrative hearing began May 2, 2016. Two days later, prior to the issuance of a decision, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, in which Appellant "agree[d] that all issues" in her complaint had been resolved and "withdr[e]w [her] request for an impartial due process hearing, with prejudice."
Appellant then filed this action in district court against the District alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The district court dismissed the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellant concedes that exhaustion is required. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) (requiring exhaustion before filing of an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim when a plaintiff is "seeking relief that is also available under [the IDEA]"). She contends, however, that she properly...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP