792 F.3d 1054
9th Cir.2015Background
- M.A. (Matthew), diagnosed with Asperger’s, previously received special-education services; Meridian School District (MSD) stopped services after an evaluation in 2008 and provided Section 504 accommodations instead.
- After a 2010 juvenile detention evaluation by Boise School District (BSD) suggested Asperger’s but noted assessments were limited by the detention setting, Matthew returned to MSD; his parents requested a comprehensive IDEA evaluation and an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense.
- MSD refused additional IDEA evaluation, relying on BSD’s report and Section 504 accommodations; hearing officer Guy Price held MSD’s reliance on BSD inappropriate and ordered an IEE at public expense (June 6, 2011).
- MSD appealed to the district court; the district court affirmed the IEE order, enjoined Matthew’s graduation, and later awarded the parents attorneys’ fees. MSD appealed those rulings to the Ninth Circuit.
- Separately, a subsequent hearing officer and the district court later determined Matthew was not eligible for special-education services under the IDEA; that determination was affirmed in a concurrent disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parents) | Defendant's Argument (MSD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSD was required to fund an IEE when BSD’s detention-center evaluation existed | BSD’s evaluation was incomplete/limited by detention setting; MSD’s refusal was unreasonable and parent is entitled to an IEE at public expense | BSD’s evaluation was adequate and MSD properly relied on it; no need for another IDEA evaluation | Affirmed: hearing officer and district court correctly ordered an IEE at public expense because BSD’s setting limited reliability and MSD overemphasized grades |
| Timeliness of parents’ attorneys’ fees request in district court | Fee claim is an independent action; 90-day appeal period for adverse parties does not govern fee claims; timely under most-analogous state statute | The claim is ancillary and subject to shorter administrative appeal periods | Held timely: Ninth Circuit treats IDEA fee requests as independent actions and applies the most analogous state statute of limitations, so parents’ filing was timely |
| Whether parents are “prevailing parties” entitled to fees under IDEA | Parents prevailed because the IEE order materially altered legal relationship and secured relief (IEE at public expense) | MSD argued the IEE was de minimis and produced no material change because child was never found to need special education | Held: Parents are prevailing parties for purposes of fee eligibility because they obtained substantive relief (IEE) |
| Whether parents are eligible for attorneys’ fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) given child was not found to need special education | Parents argued fee provision should cover parents who vindicate procedural rights and secure IEEs even if child later is found ineligible | MSD argued statute limits fees to parents of a “child with a disability” (i.e., determined to need special education) and Matthew was never so determined | Held: Reversed fee award — plain statutory text limits IDEA fee awards to parents of a child determined to need special education; parents not eligible here |
| Validity of injunction preventing Matthew’s graduation (stay-put) | Parents relied on stay-put to prevent graduation pending resolution | MSD argued injunction unnecessary because Matthew was in general education and not receiving special services; stay-put inapplicable | Held: Vacated injunction — stay-put aims to preserve existing special-education placements; here Matthew was in general education, had met graduation criteria, and years had passed, so injunction was no longer justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (IDEA procedural protections and parental participation in IEP process)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (definition of prevailing party requires change in legal relationship)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (standards for determining prevailing party and fee awards)
- Zipperer v. School Bd. of Seminole Cnty., 111 F.3d 847 (11th Cir. 1997) (IDEA fee claims are independent and not appeals of administrative decisions)
- T.B. v. Bryan Indep. Sch. Dist., 628 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2010) (interpreting §1415(i)(3)(B) to limit fees to parents of children determined to need special education)
- Dreher v. Amphitheater Unified Sch. Dist., 22 F.3d 228 (9th Cir. 1994) (analogous-limits analysis for IDEA statutory claims and choice of limitations period)