United States District Court, D. Columbia.
B.D., a minor, by and through his parents and next friends, Anne and Brantley Davis, et al., Plaintiffs,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant
Decided August 30, 2014
For B.D., a minor, ANNE DAVIS, as parent and next friend of B.D, and in her own right, BRANTLEY DAVIS, as parent and next friend of B.D., and in his own right, Plaintiffs: Diana Marjorie Savit, LEAD ATTORNEY, SAVIT & SZYMKOWICZ, LLP, Bethesda, MD.
For DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant: Veronica A. Porter, LEAD ATTORNEY, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Public Interest Division, Washington, DC.
RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge.
Plaintiffs Anne and Brantley Davis--as parents and next friends of their son, B.D.--(together " plaintiffs" ) commenced this action against the District of Columbia (" defendant" ) on August 8, 2013, claiming that the District of Columbia Public Schools (" DCPS" ) committed violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (" IDEA" ), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act (" ADA" ), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. See Complaint [Dkt. #1]. Now before the Court is defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint (" Def.'s Mot." ). See Def.'s Mot. [Dkt. 8]. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record in this case, the Court GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in part, defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint.
This case involves the provision of special education--and related services--by
the District of Columbia Public Schools for the plaintiffs' minor son--B.D. See Am. Compl. at 1. B.D. is a disabled student who suffers from " a complex set of problems and disabling conditions that significantly inhibit his ability to progress educationally without the support of special education and related services." Id. ¶ 10. B.D.'s disabilities include " specific learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (" ADHD" ), various physical health problems, gross and fine motor coordination issues, behavioral problems, sensory dysregulation and inadequate social skills." Id.
From mid-2006 through mid-2009, DCPS funded B.D.'s enrollment at the Kingsbury Day School (" Kingsbury" ), which was " able to provide special education programming commensurate with his needs." Id. ¶ ¶ 11-12. Since June 2009, B.D. has only attended school with other children for one month. See Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Partially Dismiss the Amended Complaint (" Pls.' Opp'n" ) [Dkt. #11] at 3. Plaintiffs' claims in this case stem from their various efforts to obtain a Free Appropriate Public Education (" FAPE" ) for B.D., as well as from their administrative challenges  to the allegedly unsatisfactory Individual Education Plans (" IEP" ) DCPS has developed for B.D. in the years since 2009.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court may dismiss a complaint or any portion of it for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, however, the court may only consider " the facts alleged in the complaint, any documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which [the court] may take judicial notice." E.E.O.C. v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621, 624, 326 U.S.App.D.C. 67 (D.C. Cir. 1997). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead " factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable ...