Lozano Smith is known for and provides the highest quality special education expertise in California. The firm's special education attorneys have collectively handled matters involving virtually every conceivable legal issue in the field.

For example, Lozano Smith:

  • Was selected to represent CSBA in the mandated cost reimbursement litigation against the State of California that resulted in a $1 billion settlement in favor of the school districts.
  • Has represented districts in countless mediations, due process cases, and numerous appeals to federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • Has advised Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs) throughout California to develop Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs) and local plans, and has advised school districts through the process of becoming single district SELPAs.
  • Developed special education manuals, sample policies and procedures and a variety of forms and checklists.
  • Is often asked to present at local, state, and national conferences, including ACSA's Every Child Counts Conference and LRP.
  • Develops and presents annual Special Education Legal Consortiums and webinar series at numerous locations throughout the state.

Additionally, Lozano Smith represents and advises clients regarding:

  • Individualized Education Program (IEP) team meetings
  • Section 504 meetings
  • Unilateral placement of students by their parents in nonpublic schools or residential treatments centers
  • IDEA and Section 504 resolution sessions, mediations, prehearing conferences and hearings
  • IDEA and Section 504 discipline issues and hearings
  • Bullying, discrimination and harassment claims and complaints
  • Office for Civil Rights and California Department of Education investigations and complaints
  • Special education issues related to charter school students
  • Interagency disputes
  • Case analysis and preparation
  • Revocation of consent issues
  • Pre-hearing motions, evidence preparation and witness preparation
  • Settlement analysis and agreements
  • Provision of mental health services
  • California Superior Court writs of administrative mandamus
  • California Superior Court applications for temporary restraining orders (removing dangerous students and/or protecting school personnel)
  • United States District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • United States District Court claims for attorneys' fees and costs

To minimize client costs, the firm's Special Education Practice Group has created an expansive internal library of special education templates including settlement agreements, presentations, manuals, policies, procedures, forms, pleadings, statutory settlement offers, legal opinion letters and memorandums, prehearing conference statements, opening briefs, witness questions and closing briefs.

Training for Special Education Administrators

Hundreds of special education administrators attend the Lozano Smith Special Education Legal Consortium (SELC) each year. This half-day seminar is conducted throughout the state and for individual clients as requested. It provides in-depth information on a variety of topics. Recent topics include Responding to Parent Requests, Parent Participation, Common Core and Special Education, and the ever-popular Legal Update. Topics for the SELC and all of the firm's workshops are carefully selected to highlight changes in the legal environment in which administrators must work.

In addition to the SELC, we provide in-service trainings to school districts on a wide variety of topics, ranging from student discipline to Section 504 to avoiding disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Our attorneys have also been invited to make presentations at numerous conferences, such as the ACSA Every Child Counts Symposium, LRP National Institute, and LRP School Attorneys Conference.

Aimee  Perry Senior Counsel
Sacramento, Redding aperry@lozanosmith.com
Anahid  Hoonanian Senior Counsel
Los Angeles, Bakersfield ahoonanian@lozanosmith.com
Joanne J. Kim Associate
Los Angeles jkim@lozanosmith.com
Ryan P. Tung Associate
Los Angeles, Walnut Creek rtung@lozanosmith.com
Walnut Creek, Fresno sgarcia@lozanosmith.com

Ninth Circuit Loosens Time Limits on IDEA Claims

By:Marcy Gutierrez, Michelle Truong -

April 2017 Number 19 In a case of first impression, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of looser time limits on Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) claims. (Avila v. Spokane School District 81 (9th Cir., Mar. 30, 2017, No. 14-35965) ___ F.3d ___ < http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/03/ 30/14-35965.pdf>.) The Ninth Circuit's ruling reversed a district court decision which held that some of the plaintiff parents' claims were time-ba...

Local Education Agencies Now Prohibited from Collecting Social Security Numbers

By:Penelope Glover, Niki Nabavi Nouri -

March 2017 Number 13 Armed with the understanding that Social Security numbers are the piece of information most used by criminals perpetrating identity thefts, the California legislature has barred local education agencies from collecting them. Effective January 1, 2017, Assembly Bill (AB) 2097 modified section 56601 of the Education Code to prohibit school districts, county offices of education and charter schools from collecting or soliciting Social Security numbers or the last four...

Supreme Court Clarifies Educational Progress Standard for Students in Special Education

By:Sarah Garcia, Colleen Villarreal -

March 2017 Number 12 In a much anticipated decision, a unanimous United States Supreme Court has ruled that under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) must be reasonably calculated to enable a child with a disability to make appropriate educational progress in light of the child's circumstances. (Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (March 22, 2017, No. 15-827) ___ U.S. ___ <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/1...

In Service Dog Case, Supreme Court Holds that IDEA Procedures Need Not Be Exhausted if Complaint not Related to Denial of FAPE

By:Summer Dalessandro, Kyle Raney -

February 2017 Number 10 On February 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools (2017) 580 U.S. ___ (Fry) that is expected to have a profound effect on the way lawsuits that arise under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) are litigated. The Court held that students with a disabilities are not requir...

Ninth Circuit Focuses on Timing of Student’s Due Process Complaint for Stay Put Placement

By:Marcy Gutierrez, Michelle Truong -

January 2017 Number 1 In a recent decision, N.E. v. Seattle School District (9th Cir., Nov. 17, 2016, No. 15-35910) ___ Fed.Appx. ___ 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20612, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s denial of a student’s request for injunctive relief related to their stay put placement. The appellate court focused on the timing of the student’s due process complaint and his placement for the upcoming school year. The N.E. case is interesting because it involv...

Court of Appeal Weighs In On Non-Educational State Agency's Role in Providing Related Services

By:Marcy Gutierrez, Joanne Kim -

January 2017 Number 2 In its recent decision in Department of Health Care Services v. Office of Administrative Hearings(Nov. 29, 2016, F071023) __ Cal.App.4th __ <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F071023.PDF>, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal held that during a dispute between a local education agency (LEA) and a non-educational state agency over the provision of services included in an Individualized Education Program (IEP), the department or agency that provided the se...

United States Supreme Court to Consider How Much Educational Benefit IDEA Requires

By:Sarah Garcia -

October 2016 Number 75 The United States Supreme Court has decided to take up an issue that has long divided federal courts: How much educational benefit must Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) provide to special needs students? On September 29, the high court granted review of Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (No. 15-827), a case decided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver on August 25, 2015. In that case, the court affirmed a lower court holding that ...

Representative Cases

Represented CSBA in the mandated cost reimbursement litigation against the State of California that resulted in a $1 billion settlement in favor of the school districts.
Represented districts in countless due process cases, mediations and numerous appeals to federal District Court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
G.M. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 12‐ 17242. In 2014, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished Memorandum affirming an OAH due process hearing in favor of the District. The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the U.S. District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the District’s favor on the plaintiff’s section 504 claims, as well as an award of attorneys’ fees sanctions against the parent’s attorney.
F.S.D. v. Santa Barbara Unified School District, U.S.D.C. Central District of California, Case No. 2:13‐cv‐03191‐RGK‐PJW. Received a favorable decision for the district on an appeal of a due process decision, coupled with various civil rights claims under section 1983, section 504 and the ADA. Lozano Smith represented the district successfully during the underlying due process decision and appeal of same, defending OAH’s ruling, which the Court affirmed in full. As a result of that victory and elimination of any remaining viable theories for the plaintiff’s civil rights claims, plaintiff ultimately stipulated to dismissal of the remaining causes of action in the litigation.
Alex G. v. Board of Trustees (E.D. Cal. 2004) 332 F.Supp.2d 1315. Lozano Smith attorneys successfully defended Davis Joint Unified School District on all counts in federal civil rights litigation arising out of a special education dispute. Most notably, the District's successful motion to dismiss resulted in one of the first published decisions applicable in California to stand for the proposition that a plaintiff cannot predicate a suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 on alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Alex G. v. Bd. of Trustees (E.D. Cal. 2005) 387 F.Supp.2d 1119. Lozano Smith successfully moved for partial summary judgment on behalf of the District, resulting in one of the first published decisions applicable in California to stand for the proposition that a plaintiff seeking to impose liability under Section 504 "must show that the educational decisions relating to the student were so inappropriate as to constitute either bad faith or gross misjudgment."
Huerta v. San Francisco Unified School District (N.D. Cal. 2011). Lozano Smith successfully opposed a parent's appeal of the OAH's denial of a very expensive stay put placement.
J.F. v. Magnolia School District, U.S.D.C. Central District California, Case No. CV14‐01136‐JVS-AJWx. On behalf of the District, Lozano Smith obtained a victory before OAH regarding a student’s placement, which was subsequently appealed to federal district court. Lozano Smith successfully obtained resolution of the matter, through mediation and a written settlement agreement, resulting in the student’s private placement coupled with a waiver of all claims, and certainty for the district going forward.
In the case In re Q.N., Sacramento County Superior Court Juvenile Division, Lozano Smith successfully opposed a motion for joinder of Sacramento City Unified School District (Minute Order Apr. 1, 2010). In the juvenile matter, a minor attempted to join multiple school districts, alleging they were responsible for his special education out-of-state residential placement to which he was referred by the County Mental Health Department, while housed in juvenile hall. Lozano Smith successfully demonstrated that so long as the student remained in juvenile hall, the County Office of Education, and not any individual school district, had responsibility for placement.