Lain v. Pleasanton Unified School District

Background

Joseph Lain, acting on behalf of his minor child A.L., sued the Pleasanton Unified School District and the Contra Costa County Office of Education. The case concerns whether the defendants provided A.L. with a free and appropriate public education. In August 2019, the parties agreed to an individualized education plan that provided for A.L.’s education at the Mauzy school and required certain in-person services.

After the county education office terminated its contract with the school district, the school district ultimately provided the in-person services. The California Office of Administrative Hearings later issued an August 24, 2020 “Stay Put” order requiring in-person services in four areas: a licensed vocational nurse, speech therapy, physical therapy, and vision services.

Lain moved for a temporary restraining order, asking the federal court to require compliance with the administrative order. In the motion and reply, he argued that “Stay Put” required A.L. to remain at the Mauzy school.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the same standard used for a preliminary injunction. The person seeking emergency relief generally must show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely and immediate irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the order would serve the public interest.

At the hearing, the parties did not dispute the court’s authority to decide emergency relief concerning the four types of in-person services. Lain did not dispute that A.L. had a licensed vocational nurse, and he did not dispute that the school district had provided the speech, physical-therapy, and vision services.

The court therefore treated the remaining dispute as whether the administrative order required A.L. to stay at the Mauzy school. It held that Lain had not exhausted administrative remedies on that issue because the issue did not exist when the administrative order was issued: the county education office’s contract termination occurred later. The court also said Lain’s brief argument that exhaustion would be futile was not supported by the record.

As to the speech, physical-therapy, and vision services, the court said the issue appeared moot, meaning there might no longer be a live dispute, because the school district had provided those services. For that reason, Lain had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and stated that the order disposed of the motion identified as ECF No. 6. The court said that, if a live controversy remained about the services, Lain could file a preliminary-injunction motion. Judge Laurel Beeler also asked the parties to confer about a schedule and indicated that the court could set one if they could not agree.