S. L. v. Upland Unified Sch. Dist., et al., No. 12-55715 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a minor, challenged the district court's orders upholding the OAH's partial denial of reimbursement for educational costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in No. 12-55715 and granting in part and denying in part a related motion for attorney's fees in No. 12-56796. The district court affirmed the OAH's finding that the school districts denied the student a free appropriate public education for the 2007/2008 school year when they failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement's assessment requirements. The court concluded that the private placement was appropriate. As such, the child should be reimbursed for the cost of tuition. Because the court found that the private placement was an appropriate placement, the child was also entitled to transportation reimbursement; and the district court did not err in partially rejecting reimbursement for the cost of the private aides. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part No. 12-55715. The court dismissed No. 12-56796 for lack of jurisdiction to hear the untimely appeal of the district court's order on fees.
Court Description: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s order upholding the California Office of Administrative Hearing’s partial denial of reimbursement for a student’s educational costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the student’s appeal from the district court’s order regarding attorneys’ fees. Reversing in part, the panel held that the student was entitled to reimbursement for the cost of tuition at a private school because (1) the defendant school districts denied her a free appropriate public education when they failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement’s assessment requirements, and (2) the private placement was appropriate. The panel held that the student also was entitled to reimbursement for transportation expenses, but the district court did not err in partially rejecting reimbursement for the cost of private aides. The panel dismissed the student’s appeal from the attorneys’ fees order as untimely because no separate judgment was required; accordingly, the attorneys’ fees order triggered the thirty-day period for filing an appeal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.