Original Case: 2:21-cv-00757

Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #: 0:22-cv-55226
Typecivil / private
Nature of Suit440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights
Case Filed:Mar 02, 2022
Terminated:Feb 15, 2024
Last checked: Friday Feb 16, 2024 3:10 AM PST
Amicus Curiae
EDUCATION LEGAL ALLIANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION
Represented By
Sue Ann Evans
Dannis Woliver Kelley
contact info
Amicus Curiae
COUNCIL OF PARENT ATTORNEYS AND ADVOCATES, INC.
Represented By
Selene A. Almazan-Altobelli
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
contact info
Amicus Curiae
DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER
Represented By
Selene A. Almazan-Altobelli
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
contact info
Amicus Curiae
LEARNING RIGHTS LAW CENTER
Represented By
Selene A. Almazan-Altobelli
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
contact info
Amicus Curiae
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PARENT-CHILD ADVOCACY
Represented By
Maureen Ramona Graves
Law Office of John Nolte
contact info
Defendant - Appellant
A. O., a minor, by and through her parents, Kateri and Alex Owens
Represented By
David Martin Grey
Grey & Grey
contact info
Eric Menyuk
Vanaman German, LLP
contact info
Janeen Steel
Vanaman German, LLP
contact info
Valerie Vanaman
NEWMAN, AARONSON & VANAMAN
contact info
Plaintiff - Appellee
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Represented By
Mary Kellogg
Los Angeles Unified School District
contact info
Lynn M. Beekman
Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, LLP
contact info
Tiffany Marie Santos
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost
contact info
Lyndsy B. Rodgers
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP
contact info
David R. Mishook
Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP
contact info

GPO Feb 15 2024
FILED OPINION (MILAN D. SMITH, JR., DAVID F. HAMILTON and DANIEL P. COLLINS) The school district violated the IDEA in several ways: by failing to indicate clearly the frequency and duration of the services offered, by failing to offer A.O. a meaningful benefit, and by not placing her in the least restrictive environment appropriate for her. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on these issues. We REVERSE the district court’s finding that the individualized education program was not required to specify that A.O. would receive individual speech and language therapy. The case is REMANDED to the district court to modify its judgment accordingly and for any further appropriate proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by Judge David F. Hamilton; Dissent by Judge Collins. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [12860176] [22-55204, 22-55226]

Docket last updated: 02/16/2024 3:08 AM PST
Wednesday, March 02, 2022
1 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. Setting cross-appeal briefing schedule as follows: Appellant A. O. Mediation Questionnaire due on 03/09/2022. First cross appeal brief due 06/06/2022 for Los Angeles Unified School District. Second brief on cross appeal due 07/05/2022 for A. O.. Third brief on cross appeal due 08/05/2022 for Los Angeles Unified School District . Optional cross appeal Reply brief for A.O. is due within 21days of service of Third brief on cross appeal. [12384599] 22-55226 22-55204 (RT) [Entered: 03/02/2022 02:54 PM]
Related: [-]
Att: 1 3 pgs Docketing Letter and Briefing Schedule
Att: 2 2 pgs Notice to All Parties and Counsel
Att: 3 1 pgs Mediaiton Letter
Att: 4 2 pgs Mediation Questionnaire
Att: 5 22 pgs Case Opening Packet