Capistrano Unified School District v. S.W., No. 20-55961 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment affirming in part and reversing in part an ALJ's decision in favor of student B.W. The panel held that goals (as opposed to services) in B.W.'s first grade Individualized Education Program (IEP) were not inadequate; Capistrano did not have to file for due process to defend the first grade IEP; and Capistrano did not have to have an IEP in place for the second grade. The panel remanded for the limited purpose of considering attorneys' fees. The panel addressed other issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
Court Description: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In an action brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by Capistrano Unified School District, the panel affirmed the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, affirming in part and reversing in part an administrative law judge’s decision in favor of student B.W. When B.W. was in first grade, after a dispute over services under the IDEA with Capistrano, her parents withdrew her from public school, enrolled her in private school, and filed an administrative complaint seeking reimbursement for tuition and services. Capistrano’s proposed placement and services for first grade were indisputably inadequate. At issue was mainly the consequences of that inadequacy. The panel held that the goals (as opposed to services) in B.W.’s first grade Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) were not inadequate because the goals addressed B.W.’s needs; Capistrano considered the parents’ recommendations (and those of their expert); and any data problems did not make the goals themselves inadequate. The panel held that the district court properly found that Capistrano had determined that implementation of the first grade IEP was not necessary for B.W.’s receipt of a free appropriate public education; accordingly, Capistrano did CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. S.W. 3 not have to file for a due process administrative hearing to defend the first grade IEP. The panel held that once B.W.’s parents placed her in private school for second grade, Capistrano did not have to develop an IEP, even if the parents had filed a claim for reimbursement. The panel held that, under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10), regardless of reimbursement, when a child has been enrolled in private school by her parents, the school district only needs to prepare an IEP if the parents ask for one. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment as to the above issues and remanded for the limited purpose of considering attorneys’ fees. The panel addressed other issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. 4 CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT V. S.W.
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.