This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Education Law
Disability Discrimination
Failure to Provide Effective Communication

J.G., by and through his guardian ad litems, Martha F. and Jose G. v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Published: Oct. 6, 2023 | Result Date: Feb. 22, 2023 | Filing Date: Feb. 20, 2019 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-01268-JGB (Ex) Bench Decision –  $0

Judge

Jesus G. Bernal

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Wilmer J. Harris
(Schonbrun Seplow Harris Hoffman & Zeldes)

Surisa E. Rivers
(Rivers Law, Inc.)


Defendant

Matthew R. Hicks
(BDG Law Group)


Facts

Plaintiff, a special needs student with Down syndrome, alleged that defendant Los Angeles Unified School District violated his Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act rights by LAUSD allegedly not integrating plaintiff properly into a general education population (unlawfully segregated him); failing to provide effective communication, and failing to provide the proper assessments, arising from his time at Lowman Special Education Center from kindergarten through twelfth grade.

Contentions

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant LAUSD denied all of the allegations and denied all liability.

Damages

Plaintiff sought $1,312,000 in damages.

Result

The court's bench decision found that LAUSD was at fault for not properly integrating plaintiff during his twelfth grade year (2018-2019), found no other liability on any of the other claims, and found plaintiff was not entitled to any damages.

Other Information

Following the decision, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for attorney's fees seeking $750,000. The court denied plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. Plaintiff's counsel has appealed the denial of the motion for attorney's fees ruling but not the bench decision. Plaintiff is now pursuing relief in state court, seeking to use the federal court finding as collateral estoppel in the state court litigation to establish liability there.


#141832

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390