Opinion
No. 17-16625
01-15-2019
ALBERTO SOLORIO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01319-LJO-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 20, 2018 San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
J.S., by and through her parents Alberto and Alicia Solorio, appeals the district court's affirmance of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decision finding that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Clovis Unified School District's 2016 individualized education program (IEP) was a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least- restrictive environment (LRE). We affirm. 1. The district court did not err in giving due weight to the ALJ's decision, which was careful, thorough, well-reasoned, sensitive to the complexity of the relevant legal issues, and thus entitled substantial weight. See Ojai Unified Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 4 F.3d 1467, 1476 (9th Cir. 1993). With respect to the persuasiveness of Patricia McVay's testimony, the ALJ was in the best position to determine the credibility of the relevant witnesses, see Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 889 (9th Cir. 2001), and he offered sound reasons for finding McVay's testimony to be unpersuasive. 2. There is sufficient evidence to support the determination that Clovis's proposed IEP constitutes a FAPE in the LRE. In balancing the relevant Rachel H. factors, the ALJ found that the factors concerning educational and non-academic benefits weighed in favor of a conclusion that the proposed IEP was a FAPE in the LRE, and that those factors outweighed the disruptiveness and cost factors. The district court agreed. Those findings were permissible under our case law, see, e.g., Baquerizo v. Garden Grove Unified Sch. Dist., 826 F.3d 1179, 1188 (9th Cir. 2016), and we will not disturb them, see Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist., 502 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir. 2007).
Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist., Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H. ex rel. Holland, 14 F.3d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir. 1994). --------
AFFIRMED.