UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 20-2084 _______________________

T.R., a minor, individually, by and through her parent, Barbara Galarza, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; BARBARA GALARZA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; A.G., a minor, individually, by and through his parent, Margarita Peralta, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MARGARITA PERALTA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; L.R.; D.R., a minor, individually, by and through her parent, Madeline Perez, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; J.R.; MADELINE PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; R.H., a minor, individually, by and through his parent, Manqing Lin, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; MANQING LIN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated

v.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

L.R., D.R. and their mother, Madeline Perez, and R.H. and his mother Manqing Lin, Appellants _______________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court No. 2-15-cv-04782 District Judge: The Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg __________________________

Argued January 20, 2021

Before: SMITH, Chief Judge, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed July 9, 2021)

Chanda A. Miller Paul H. Saint-Antoine [ARGUED] FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH One Logan Square Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michael Churchill Claudia De Palma PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA 1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard -2- Two Penn Center, Suite 802 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Maura I. McInerney Margaret M. Wakelin EDUCATION LAW CENTER 1800 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellants Danielle M. Goebel [ARGUED] Katherine V. Hartman Marjorie M. Obod [ARGUED] DILWORTH PAXSON 1500 Market Street Suite 3500 E Philadelphia, PA 19103 Counsel for Appellee Richard Salgado JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Carter G. Phillips SIDLEY AUSTIN 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 -3- Catherine M. Reisman REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Ellen M. Saideman 7 Henry Drive Barrington, RI 02806 Counsel for Amici Appellants

__________________________

OPINION OF THE COURT ________________________

SMITH, Chief Judge.

Appellant-Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against the School District of Philadelphia claiming shortcomings in the School District’s translation and interpretation services that purportedly amount to a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The IDEA seeks to ensure that the unique needs of each child in special education are provided for in accordance with individualized education plans. Plaintiffs appeal both an order denying their class certification motion and a summary judgment order wherein the District Court declined to find that Plaintiffs met a systemic exception to IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement. -4- For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.

I. INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

A. Procedural Safeguards

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., is a statute that offers federal funding to States for the education of children with disabilities. See, e.g., Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 993 (2017). “In exchange for the funds, a State pledges to