T. M.J. v. Vallejo City Unified School District

── T. M.J. v. Vallejo City Unified School District ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT T.M.J., No. 24-6925 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-02141-TLN-SCR v. MEMORANDUM* VALLEJO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; FAIRFIELD-SUISUN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 6, 2025 San Francisco, California Before: NGUYEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.** Plaintiff T.M.J. was a student in Vallejo City Unified School District (VCUSD) from 2012 to 2018, and in Fairfield Suisun Unified School District * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation. (FSUSD) from 2018 to 2024. He appeals the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) order dismissing his Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) suit against VCUSD and FSUSD (collectively, Defendants) as untimely under the IDEA’s statute of limitations. We review the grant of a motion to dismiss de novo, Pardini v. Unilever U.S., Inc., 65 F.4th 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2023), including whether a claim is barred by the IDEA’s statute of limitations, Avila v. Spokane Sch. Dist. 81, 852 F.3d 936, 939 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The IDEA provides that a parent “shall request an impartial due process hearing within 2 years of the date the parent . . . knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C). In this suit, T.M.J. alleges violations dating back to 2013, but he did not file his due process complaint until April 28, 2023. In 2020, T.M.J. was diagnosed for the first time with a specific learning disability, revealing that up until then he had suffered from an undiagnosed disability. By this point, at the very latest, his parents therefore “knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint,” id., i.e., the Defendants’ alleged misdiagnosis of T.M.J. The district court thus correctly determined that T.M.J.’s claims preceding April 28, 2021 were time-barred. See J.R. v. Ventura Unified Sch. Dist., Nos. 25-334 & 25-5247, --- 2 24-6925 F.4th ---, Slip Op. at 16–21 (9th Cir. April 22, 2026).1 The IDEA also provides that the two-year statute of limitations “shall not apply to a parent if the parent was prevented from requesting the hearing due to— (i) specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint; or (ii) the local educational agency’s withholding of information from the parent that was required under this subchapter to be provided to the parent.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D). The district court correctly determined that neither exception applies. The first exception does not apply because Defendants made no “specific misrepresentations” that they “had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D)(i). As we explained in J.R., a general statement that a school district has asse