L. J. v. Pittsburg Unified School District, No. 14-16139 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe court filed (1) an order amending its opinion and denying a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, and (2) an amended opinion reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the school district. Plaintiff filed suit to require the district court to provide her son L.J. with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Although the district court found that L.J. was disabled under three categories defined by the IDEA, it concluded that an IEP for specialized services was not necessary because of L.J.'s satisfactory performance in general education classes. The court concluded that the district court clearly erred because L.J. was receiving special services, including mental health counseling and assistance from a one-on-one paraeducator. The court pointed out the important distinction that these are not services offered to general education students. The court explained that the problem with the district court's analysis is that many of the services the district court viewed as general education services were in fact special education services tailored to L.J.'s situation. Because L.J. is eligible for special education, the school district must formulate an IEP. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to provide that remedy. The court also concluded that the school district clearly violated important procedural safeguards set forth in the IDEA when it failed to disclose assessments, treatment plans, and progress notes, which deprived L.J.'s mother of her right to informed consent. The school district failed to conduct a health assessment, which rendered the school district and IEP team unable to evaluate and address L.J.'s medication and treatment related needs. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.
Court Description: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The panel filed (1) an order amending its opinion and denying a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc, and (2) an amended opinion reversing the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant school district in an action brought by a student and his mother under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The panel held that the student was eligible for special education and related services. The panel agreed with the district court that the student was disabled under three categories defined by the IDEA. The panel disagreed, however, with the district court’s ruling that the student did not need special education services because of his satisfactory performance in general education classes. Rather, the student exhibited a need for services because his improved performance was due to his receipt of special services, including mental health counseling and one-on-one assistance not offered to general education students. In addition, the district court did not adequately take into account the student’s continued troubling behavioral and academic issues. The panel held that the student’s psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts were relevant to his eligibility for specialized instruction even though they occurred outside of school. L.J. V. PITTSBURG U.S.D. 3 The panel held that the school district also committed procedural violations of the IDEA by failing to disclose school records and failing to conduct a health assessment. The panel reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for it to order that the school district provide the remedy of an individualized educational plan.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 1, 2016.
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.