F. v. Ripon Unified School District
| Z. F. and Mary Ann Fiedler |
| Ripon Unified School District |
| 2:2011cv02741 |
| October 17, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| San Joaquin |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/8/13 ORDERING that the District's 15 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and plaintiffs' 12 motion for summary judgment is DENIED. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/18/2012. The parties 12 15 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are pending. Court hereby directs counsel to be prepared to address following questions during oral argument on the Cross-Motions to be held on 10/19/2012 at 1:30 p.m. (A) For Plaintiffs: 1. The administrative record shows Plaintiffs filed Request for Due Process and Mediation on 8/11/2010. What was the outcome? 2. The record suggests that Learning Solutions is qualified equally as G enesis. If so, why is Z.F. now being homeschooled, assuming Z.F. is? 3. What kind of transition from Genesis to Learning Solutions do Plaintiffs believe was required? Not every IDEA procedural violation denies a student a FAPE. What is it about Dis trict's actions in this case that are so egregious as to have denied Z.F. a FAPE? 5. How is it that denying parental input on this NPA transition is a per se violation of IDEA procedures? Need school districts solicit parental inputon every deta il of a student's IEP, including who takes notes during IEP meetings? Is there not some higher threshold for the importance of an IEP element for which parents are entitled to provide input? 6. Plaintiffs learned by letter on 1/19/2011 that Dist rict was replacing Genesis. See AR Vol. 5 at 1355. The record contains several emails between Z.F.'s mother and others regarding this change and the transition between NPAs. Why does this correspondence not reflect sufficient opportunity for par ental input? (B) For Defendant: 1. When a district changes NPAs, how much time is allowed for a child to transition to the new NPA? Is there a general practice in this regard? 2. Why did Defendant not involve Z.F.'s IEP committee in fashioning a transition plan before finalizing the termination of the Genesis contract? 3. Is it Defendant's position that replacing one NPA with another to provide behavior intervention services is not part of a student's IEP? Is a district's c hoice of NPA not an educational placement under the IDEA? 4. How many children within the District did Genesis work with? 5. Could the District have worked with Genesis after the contract termination negotiations had been completed to accommodate a longer transition period for Z.F.? 6. Why precisely are the District's actions not so egregious as to rise to thelevel of denying Z.F. a FAPE? (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/7/2012 DENYING the Request to Seal connected to 11 Notice of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents on the public docket. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
9
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 3/16/12: Discovery due by 6/29/2012. Dispositive Motions filed by 8/24/2012. (Kaminski, H)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
