holding challenge to school closures moot and rejecting as speculative argument that schools may impose further restrictions
How later courts described this case
- holding challenge to school closures moot and rejecting as speculative argument that schools may impose further restrictions
- plaintiff’s failure to request compensatory education in federal complaint “deprived the district court of an opportunity to exercise . . . discretion” to award that relief, such that case was moot
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:21-cv-07355-SB-E Document 46 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:7793
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J.B. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-07355-SB-E
Plaintiffs,
v. ORDER FOR PARTIES TO MEET
AND CONFER AND FOR
BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE
DISTRICT, RE: DISMISSAL
Defendant.
In a published decision issued last week, the Ninth Circuit addressed
mootness in a suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
alleging that California schools failed to provide disabled students a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) when they transitioned to remote instruction
in March 2020. Martinez v. Newsom, No. 20-56404, 2022 WL 3642172 (9th Cir.
Aug. 24, 2022). The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims against defendants from
whom they did not seek compensatory relief were moot because the schools had
resumed in-person instruction. Id. at *5. In the absence of a request for
compensatory relief or for injunctive relief that was not moot, the plaintiffs’
requests for a declaratory judgment stating that the defendants had violated the
IDEA and for attorneys’ fees and costs were insufficient to confer Article III
standing. Id.
Plaintiffs’ complaint in this action requests a variety of declaratory relief and
an award of attorneys’ fees and costs, but it does not request compensatory relief.
Dkt. No. 1 at 28–30 (Prayer for Relief); see also Dkt. No. 20 at 2 (joint Rule 26(f)
report describing case as “a review of an administrative decision for which no
damages are sought; however, attorney’s fees are sought by Plaintiffs”). In their
July 29 supplemental brief, Plaintiffs assert that they are “seeking compensatory
education and services,” Dkt. No. 40 at 10, but they cite no such demand in their
1
Case 2:21-cv-07355-SB-E Document 46 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:7794
complaint or in any of their filings before the Court. To account for Plaintiff J.B.’s
regression during the period of distance learning, the administrative law judge
(ALJ) awarded her up to 120 hours of compensatory education and related services
in an amount not to exceed $18,000, and Plaintiffs have not challenged the ALJ’s
decision on this issue or argued that the award of compensatory education was
insufficient. Nor have Plaintiffs argued in any of their briefing that the Court (or
the ALJ on remand) should award a particular amount of compensatory
education—much less identified evidence in the administrative record to support
such an award. Thus, Plaintiffs’ assertion that they seek compensatory education
in this action appears to be baseless.
Courts have held that where a federal complaint does not specifically seek
compensatory relief, an earlier request for compensatory education during the state
administrative proceedings does not create an Article III controversy in federal
courts where the plaintiff’s claim is otherwise moot. See Johnson v. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Educ., 20 F.4th 835, 844–45 (4th Cir. 2021) (“[I]t was
Johnson’s choice as plaintiff whether to seek compensatory education as a remedy
in federal court . . . . We therefore hold that a plaintiff ordinarily must include in
her federal complaint a request for compensatory education to avoid dismissal for
mootness when the student no longer is enrolled in the defendant school system.”);
Brown v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 442 F.3d 588, 598 (7th Cir. 2006)
(plaintiff’s failure to request compensatory education in federal complaint
“deprived the district court of an opportunity to exercise . . . discretion” to award
that relief, such that case was moot).
Apart from attorney’s fees and costs, Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks only
declarations that the ALJ erred in various rulings relating to Defendant’s alleged
denial of a FAPE to J.B. Plaintiffs’ briefing primarily challenges the adequacy of
Defendant’s services in the context of distance learning. Because J.B. has resumed
in-person education and “California has unequivocally renounced the use of school
closure orders in the future,” Martinez, 2022 WL 3642172, at *5 (cleaned up), it
appears that her claims are moot, at least to the extent they challenge deficiencies
in the remote education offered during the COVID-19 pandemic. See id.
(explaining that plaintiff’s curiosity “to learn whether California’s school closures
were unlawful” did not permit court to rule on requests for declaratory relief in
light of the schools’ reopening); Brach v. Newsom, 38 F.4th 6, 15 (9th Cir. 2022)
(holding challenge to school closures moot and rejecting as speculative argument
that schools may impose further restrictions).
2
Case 2:21-cv-07355-SB-E Document 46 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:7795
Plaintiffs contend in their briefing that “[t]he issue of services during
COVID-19 and the related federal and state guidance” is “part of all” the issues in
this case because “all of [J.B.’s] issues are intertwined.” Dkt. No. 37 at 5. If
Plaintiffs’ claims all challenge the education and resources provided to J.B. while
Defendant’s schools were closed (for which the ALJ already awarded
compensatory education), then they appear to be moot. Moreover, Plaintiffs
represent that the parties reached an agreement last month on a new triennial
assessment plan. Dkt. No. 40 at 10. Plaintiffs’ complaint largely contends that
Defendant ignored various assessments and recommendations in 2019 and 2020
when fashioning an individualized education program for J.B. Even apart from the
resumption of in-person education, it is unclear on this record why these claims are
not moot in the absence of a request for compensatory education.
Given the parties’ apparent confusion about the relief Plaintiffs seek and the
mootness of some if not all of Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court ORDERS the parties no
later than September 7, 2022 to meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on
the appropriate disposition of Plaintiffs’ claims (including, if possible, a resolution
that would avoid the need for further litigation). Counsel shall participate in the
meet and confer in person or by videoconference. The parties shall file a joint
report on their reasonable efforts to reach agreement and the outcome of their
meeting by September 9, 2022. The Court upon review of the parties’ joint report
will decide whether to hold a hearing.
In the absence of a further order, if the parties are unable to reach agreement,
Plaintiffs are ORDERED no later than September 16, 2022, to show cause in
writing why their claims should not be dismissed as moot. For each claim or
portion of a claim that Plaintiffs contend is not moot, Plaintiffs shall identify the
declaratory relief they seek in their federal complaint as to that claim and explain
why the requested declaration addresses a live dispute between the parties that
impacts the education presently being provided to J.B. Failure to timely respond
will be construed as consent to dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims as moot. Defendant
may file a reply no later than September 21, 2022.
Date: August 30, 2022 ___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge
3