Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

C.W. v. Denver County School District No. 1

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 14, 2018

C.W., a minor, by and through his parents B.W. and C.B., Plaintiff,
v.
DENVER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

          Marcia S. Krieger Chief United States District Judge.

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (# 25), the Plaintiff's Response (# 30), and the Defendant's Reply (# 34). For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

         I. JURISDICTION

         The Court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final decision of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A).

         II. BACKGROUND

         For purposes of this motion, the material factual allegations can be briefly summarized.[1]Plaintiff C.W. is a minor child enrolled in the Defendant Denver County School District (the District). He has tested as a highly gifted and talented student, but suffers from a number of disabilities, including an autism spectrum disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrom, Tourette's disorder, an eating disorder and encopresis, and a sleep disorder entitling him to special education and related services.

         In conformance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), [2] a team comprised of C.W.'s parents and District personnel assessed C.W.'s needs. Due to the severity and complexity of his disabilities, they determined that the least restrictive environment for his public education was at his home. As a consequence, his 10/24/12 Individual Educational Plan (IEP) recommended educational placement at his home.

         Since the 2012-2013 academic year, the District has not provided instruction in core academic subjects (language arts, mathematics, science, history, civics and government, geography, economics, art and foreign language) nor in social sciences, technology, library and information, visual arts, theater, music, technology and physical education, or instruction appropriate to a highly gifted and talented student. The services that were provided were neither appropriate nor sufficient, and they were not delivered by providers with adequate training/experience to meet C.W.'s needs. In 2016, C.W.'s parents brought a due-process complaint against the District based on these grievances.

         In 2017, over his parents' objection, the District changed C.W.'s designated placement from his home to a Residential Facility.

         Upon consideration of C.W.'s parents' complaint and evidence presented at a hearing, an administrative law judge held that the District had violated the IDEA during the 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017 academic years, and awarded unspecified compensatory damages. But the ALJ found that the 2017 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide C.W. with a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

         C.W.'s parents now bring several claims. In its first claim for relief, the Amended Complaint seeks review and reversal of the ALJ's determination pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415(C). Because C.W.'s parents prevailed on claims pertinent to school years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, and 2016-2017, the Court understands that this challenge is limited to the one adverse ruling made by the ALJ - that the 2017 IEP was reasonably calculated to provide C.W. with a FAPE. The second claim contends that the District's past and present actions violate § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The third claim contends that the District's past and present actions violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The fourth claim contends that the District's actions (not circumscribed by time or otherwise described) violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

         The District requests dismissal of the Fourth Claim for relief for failure to state a claim. (# 25).

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and view those allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1149 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999)). The Court must limit its consideration to the four corners of the complaint, any exhibits attached thereto, and any external documents that are incorporated by reference. See Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). However, a court may consider documents referred to in the complaint ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.