
    H. BERRY, by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Penny BERRY; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LAS VIRGENES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-55693.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 2, 2010.
    Filed March 11, 2010.
    George D. Crook, Newman Aaronson & Vanaman, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Howard J. Fulfrost, Esquire, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Charles L. Weatherly, Sr., Esquire, The Weatherly Law Firm, Atlanta, GA for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RYMER and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Matthew F. Kennedy, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Las Virgenes Unified School District (School District) appeals the district court’s determination that it violated the procedural requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., by predetermining the placement of an autistic boy, H.B., prior to his individualized education program (IEP) meeting. We previously considered this case and remanded so that the district court could make findings regarding the School District’s intent or state of mind prior to and during the IEP meeting. H.B. v. Las Virgenes Unified Sch. Dist., 239 Fed.Appx. 342 (9th Cir.2007). The court held an evidentiary hearing on remand, and made factual determinations that we review for clear error. See Ash v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist., 980 F.2d 585, 588 (9th Cir.1992). Seeing none, we affirm.

Based on testimony from School District representatives and the child’s mother at the evidentiary hearing as well as the entire record, the district tíourt found that the decision to transfer H.B. from his private placement to the district had been made before the meeting was held. It specifically found district representatives’ testimony about being open to considering alternative placements incredible, and found credible the mother’s testimony that her minimal participation was due to futility. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Applying the legal standard endorsed in our prior disposition, the district court concluded that H.B.’s placement was predetermined. This being so, the procedural requirements of the IDEA were violated, and the hearing officer’s decision was properly reversed.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     