Compton Unified School District v. Addison

598 F.3d 1181 (2010)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Compton Unified School District v. Addison

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
598 F.3d 1181 (2010)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Starvenia Addison (plaintiff) was a high school student in the Compton Unified School District (district) (defendant). In her ninth-grade year, Addison academically performed at a fourth-grade level, earning poor grades and scoring below the first percentile on standardized tests. The school counselor attributed Addison’s difficulties to the high school transition, and Addison continued to her tenth-grade year, during which she failed every academic subject. Teachers reported that Addison turned in papers of gibberish, colored with crayons, played with dolls, and occasionally soiled herself in class. Addison’s mother was hesitant to have Addison formally assessed, and the district did not push. Instead, Addison was sent to an outside mental health counselor, who recommended that the district assess Addison for learning disabilities. The district refused and pushed Addison into eleventh grade. Addison’s mother formally requested that the district conduct an educational assessment and hold an individualized education program (IEP) meeting for Addison. Three months later, the district assessed Addison, and after another month had passed, the IEP team found Addison eligible for special education services. Addison filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alleging that the district failed to meet its Child Find requirement. The administrative-law judge found in favor of Addison at the due-process hearing, and a district court affirmed the judgment on appeal. The district appealed the case again to the Ninth Circuit. Although the IDEA required educational agencies to provide written notice if initiating or refusing to initiate a child’s identification or evaluation, the district argued that Addison was not entitled to written notice and thus had no right to file her claim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)

Dissent (Smith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership