HomeQuick Facts
Practice Areas:
- Special Education
- Regional Centers & Fair Hearings
- Student Civil Rights School
- Discipline Juvenile Law
Accreditation:
- Pepperdine School of Law
- Admitted to all Federal District Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- California State Bar
Legal Practice Area
Hans Gillinger has extensive experience in representing students with disabilities with respect to their educational needs and in related civil rights litigation. He is stability and reliability for his clients. Hans began advocating for the special education rights of children and young adults in 2003 while in law school. He started his legal career in parent practice. He has performed extensive legal research and analysis of the IDEA and implementing state and federal law. He regularly represented clients from IEP meetings to due process. Uniquely, Hans also spent years representing school districts and SELPAs in special education matters. He comes from the prestigious defense firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen that has represented California public entities since 1927. Knowing how school districts and their counsel evaluate cases, the reasons justifying a higher settlement offer, and both the things that make school districts fight, as well as what promotes cooperation with parents by public agencies, enables Hans to obtain superior client outcomes. Hans and our team of lawyers and legal professionals consistently obtain favorable outcomes that help return each of our client families from the chaos that results from being in a dispute with their local school district. We understand the serious impact such disputes have on our clients’ lives, and our attorneys approach each case with the same goal – to provide clients with a sense of calm that comes from knowing that experienced attorneys are navigating their case to best achieve each client’s goals. We value our current clients, and we look forward to speaking with you about how we can help achieve your unique goals for your child’s educational program.
Representative Matters in Defense Work
| Case Name | Area of Emphasis | Verdict/outcome |
| Representative Federal IDEA Cases – Defense | ||
| H.C. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. –Case No.: CV 10-00349 SJO (Ex) | “Christopher S.” exemption to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement | Obtained an order of dismissal in Federal District Court.[1] |
| H.W. et al. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 714392 (C.D. Cal.), No.: CV 10-07015 SJO (Ex) (Feb. 24, 2011) | The IDEA’s exhaustion requirement as applied to the student’s use of state complaint resolution procedures instead of due process procedures. | Obtained an order of Dismissal in Federal District Court. Order located at 2011 WL 714392 (C.D.Cal.) |
| M.K. v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. –Case No.: 08-CV-02213-GAF (VBKx) | Action for judicial review in federal court, which was adjudicated on the merits by way of a trial on the administrative record. | Prevailed in district court at trial. Judgment entered in favor of the school district and against the student. |
| Tappie v. Colton Joint Unified Sch. Dist. – EDCV07-556 SGL (OPx) | Action for judicial review in federal court, which was adjudicated on the merits by way of a trial on the administrative record. | Prevailed in district court at trial. Judgment entered in favor of the school district and against the student. |
| W.C. v. Lowell Joint Unified Sch. Dist. – Case No.: CV-08-5062-R | Action for judicial review in federal court, which was adjudicated on the merits by way of a trial on the administrative record. | Prevailed in district court at trial. Judgment entered in favor of the school district and against the student. |
| Ponce v. Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. – Case No.: 1:09-CV-02142-LJO-SKO | Student-initiated action for judicial review in federal court of adverse administrative decision below. | Prevailed in Federal District Court by obtaining order granting school district’s motion to dismiss, which terminated the student’s appeal. |
| Representative Special Education Due Process Cases – Defense | ||
| L.A. v. Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District, OAH Consolidated Case Nos. 2009010036/2008100093 | A Seven-day due process hearing concerning the appropriateness of four (4) IEP offers and numerous district assessments. The case involved a range of issues, but centered on an LRE dispute as to whether the district’s Autism SDC placement offer was appropriate, or whether the student required the parent-preferred in-home placement. | Prevailed at a special education due process hearing. The decision found in favor of the school district on all issues, and that the school district was the prevailing party on all issues heard and decided. |
| P. Donald v. Los Angles Unified School District, Los Angeles County Office of Education, Los Angeles Department of Mental Health, California Department of Education, and Long Beach Unified School District, OAH Case No.: 2009100740 | Due process matter where the student was in the custody of the department of juvenile justice and maintained that a court-ordered re-designation of his Responsible Adult to that of a surrogate parent made our school district client responsible for providing him with a FAPE solely because the student’s biological mother resided within that school district.[2] | Obtained an order of dismissal upon finding that the school district client was not the responsible public agency for the pupil’s education. |
| Student v. Long Beach Unified School District, OAH Case No. 20009101534 | Action filed by autistic three year old student by and through his attorneys, NEWMAN AARONSON VANAMAN, contesting the procedural and substantive adequacy of his initial IEP. | Obtained voluntary dismissal by student days before the start of the due process hearing where early case evaluation identified the student’s claims as defensible. |
| Representative Civil Litigation – Law & Motion – Defense | ||
| Engelhardt v. Sindoni, Case No.: SC089253 | Motion for summary judgment filed in Superior Court action for injunctive and declaratory relief and for damages on claims for trespass and nuisance. | Court granted motion for summary judgment disposing of all claims. Court later granted motion for attorneys’ fees as the party successfully enforcing rights conferred by the CC&Rs, which provided for attorneys’ fee award. |
| Hubbard v. Newhall School District, Case No.: PC 043890 | Demurrer and motion to strike complaint and first and second amended complaints. | Demurrer and motion to strike granted as to the initial, first amended, and second amended complaint. Case ultimately ordered dismissal with prejudice. |
| Forest Moyer v. Long Beach Unified School District – Case No.: 2:09-cv-04430-MMM-AJW | Court granted our motion to bifurcate the IDEA claims from non-IDEA claims; tried the IDEA claims in federal trial court; and successfully defending the IDEA claims would cause the student plaintiff’s non-IDEA claims to fail as a matter of law. | Prevailed in federal trial court obtaining a January 24, 2013 Decision that affirmed the administrative hearing officer’s decision below, which ruled in favor of the school district. Court found no exception applied to the IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations and that most claims were time-barred, and that all claims within the claims’ period failed for various reasons including the student’s failure to exhaust certain issues. |
| Chavez v. Cooper – Case No.: CIV239950 | Motion to stay civil action pending resolution of defendant’s appeal of the verdict and decision reached in the parallel criminal proceedings. | Court granted stay request. |
| People v. H.W., Case No.: NJ21451 | Petition to juvenile court pursuant to Section 827 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of school district to obtain copies of and to disclose juvenile court records to the Office of Administrative Hearings to defend special education due process hearing complaint of juvenile. | Juvenile court granted the petition, and records used to defend due process action of juvenile. |
| People v. B.N., Case No.: NJ24623 | Petition to juvenile court pursuant to Section 827 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of school district to obtain copies of and to disclose juvenile court records to the Office of Administrative Hearings to defend special education due process hearing complaint of juvenile. | Juvenile court granted the petition, and records used to defend due process action of juvenile. |
| Ponce v. Clovis Unified School District, Case No.: CV F 09-2142 LJO SMS | School district motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and because minor plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue. | Federal Court granted the motion dismissing the initial and first amended complaints. |
[1] Following the initial denial of the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Gillinger filed a Third Party Complaint bringing in nearly one hundred third party defendants. Concurrently, Mr. Gillinger sought an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit as an alternative to reconsideration. Dismissal was ordered upon reconsideration.
[2] Mr. Gillinger successfully argued that the student’s biological mother was not the student’s “parent or guardian” within the meaning of California residency statutes, and that the school district was not responsible for the student’s education where neither of the student’s biological parents held student’s educational rights at any time relevant to the action.