BR Ex Rel. Rempson v. District of Columbia
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89619
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- B.R., a minor with learning disabilities, attended SEED, a DC public charter school, from the start of seventh grade until May 2006.
- B.R. was diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder in 2004 and had extensive behavioral issues leading to numerous disciplinary actions in late 2004–early 2005.
- May 2005 IEP and December 2005 revised IEP provided that B.R. would spend 100% of time out of regular education and receive social-emotional counseling plus extended school year services after 2005-2006.
- In February 2006, after notice of proposed placement at Hart Middle School (a DCPS school), plaintiffs challenged the placement as not consistent with the IEP.
- May 2006 Hearing Officer determined Hart could meet B.R.'s needs and ordered placement at Hart for the remainder of the 2005-2006 year; DCPS did not hold an end-of-year IEP meeting for 2006-2007.
- August 2006, after no placement decision from DCPS, B.R.’s mother privately placed her at High Road School; in September 2006 a second administrative complaint was filed alleging denial of FAPE.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCPS liability for SEED's evaluations | DCPS liable for child-find failures within DC; SEED’s conduct imputable to DCPS as SEA/LEA. | SEED, as LEA, is primarily responsible; DCPS liable only if asked for assistance or directed by a hearing officer. | DCPS not liable for SEED's evaluations; cross-motion granted. |
| Relief for extended school year services (2005-2006) | Extended school year services were required by the 2005 IEP and should be compensated. | Plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies; court lacks jurisdiction to award such relief. | Relief upon clarification denied; no jurisdiction due to lack of exhaustion. |
| Attorney's fees and prevailing party status | Plaintiffs prevailed on at least some issues and should recover fees; rates reasonable per Laffey Matrix. | Partial success and moot tuition issue reduce recoverable fees; cap applies to pre-2009 actions. | Fees awarded in part; substantial reductions for lack of complete success and moot issues; cap acknowledged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing party requires some relief awarded by the court)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (fee awards depend on reasonable hours and level of success)
- Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite in IDEA cases)
- Lopez v. District of Columbia, 383 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2005) (Laffey Matrix used to determine reasonable fee rates in IDEA actions)
- Reid v. District of Columbia, 310 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D.D.C. 2004) (child-find duties and SEA/LEA responsibilities under IDEA)
- Murphy v. District of Columbia, 448 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D.D.C. 2006) (LEA charter school retains responsibility for FAPE unless SEA assumes duties)