UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
J.A., et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Case No. 09-0239 (RJL)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al. )
)
Defendants. )
~
UMORDER
(February _ ,2010) [# 8,10]
This case concerns plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of2004, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq.
("IDEA"). Plaintiffs have moved to amend their Complaint to add a count alleging
that the District failed to provide an adequate transcript of the due process hearing
from which plaintiffs appeal. Defendants oppose the motion. Based on the parties'
pleadings, applicable law, and the entire record herein, plaintiffs' Motion to Amend is
DENIED.
Plaintiffs seek to amend their Complaint under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. While the Court is encouraged to grant leave freely "when
justice so requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), it is within the Court's discretion to deny
leave for "surticient reason, such as ... 'futility of amendment. '" Firestone v.
Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205,1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting Farnan v. Davis, 371 U.S.
178, 182 (1962». Indeed. amendment is futile if the proposed amended claim would
not survive a motion to dismiss. James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F .3d 1085, 1099
(D.C. Cir. 1996). Such is the situation here.
Plaintiffs' proposed amendment would be futile because the count they seek to
add to their Complaint would not survive a motion to dismiss. Simply put, plaintiffs'
claim regarding the inadequacy of the transcript they received from the District is not
cognizable in this jurisdiction. At best, the District's failure to provide an adequate
transcript amounted to procedural error under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.c.§ 1415(h)(3)
(providing parents "the right to a written ... verbatim record"); a. a. v. District 0/
Columhia. 573 F. Supp. 2d 41. 48 (D.D.C. 20(8). Procedural errors, however, do not
amount to viable claims under the IDEA unless they affect a student's substantive
rights. Lesesne v. District o/Columbia. 447 F.3d 828, 834 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Indeed,
the proposed Amended Complaint does not even allege that J.A.' s substantive rights
suffered in any way as a result of the incomplete transcript. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs Motion to Amend 1#81 is DENIED, and it is further
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Remand 1# 101 is GRANTED. The
matter is REMANDED to the J learing Officer to determine the appropriateness of
DCPS' proposed placement of the student at Janney Elementary School for school
year 2008-2009.
SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
2