as to plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fifth Claims of their Amended Complaint. B. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. 1. Defendants Violated the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. As discussed above, the Court will construe plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint to state a claim directly under § 1415(i)(2)(A) to enforce the IDEA. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to provide plaintiffs with a FAPE, failed to comply with their Child Find duties, and failed to ensure a smooth and effective transition from Part C to Part B, in violation of §§ 1412(a)(1)(A), 1412(a)(3)(A), and 1412(a)(9). (Pis.’ Reply at 3.) Plaintiffs have the burden of proving a violation of the IDEA. See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51, 126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387 (2005) (<HOLDING>). a. Defendants Denied a Free Appropriate
recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that a party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief such as by appeal holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine