260 F.3d at 119 (citation omitted). In IDEA cases, the first factor is generally satisfied because judicial review of an IEP challenge typically takes longer than the duration of the school year. See R ailure to consent to updated evaluations weighed against the likelihood that the same conduct would recur,' because updated evaluations would likely significantly impact recommendations in future IEPs. See id. The court further noted that “a party may not, by its own conduct, create the appearance of an actual controversy to avoid mootness.” Id. Courts have found conduct “capable of repetition” where the parties demonstrate an ongoing dispute over the district’s mainstreaming obligation. See Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398, 1403 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ.,
holding that where a high school student and the students mother received adequate notice of the charges had sufficient opportunity to prepare for the meeting with school personnel were accorded an orderly hearing and were given a fair and impartial decision no due process violation occurred even though the school failed to provide advance notice that the potential disciplinary actions included a transfer to another school holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that school districts provision of teaching materials in a tardy fashion had an educational source and educational consequences holding that a school district owed the highest degree of care to a student on a school bus such that the district could be liable for the sexual abuse of the student by the school bus driver holding that the exception applies where the parents and school district had conflicting educational philosophies regarding mainstreaming of the student which were likely to recur