Sam K. Ex Rel. Diane C. v. State of Hawaii Department of Education
788 F.3d 1033
9th Cir.2015Background
- Sam K., a disabled student, attended Loveland Academy (private) since 2003; DOE previously settled to reimburse tuition for 2007–08 through 2009–10.
- For 2010–11, parties met repeatedly but DOE did not present a signed IEP with a public placement until January 14, 2011 (Windward ILC); DOE later stated the IEP was final in March/April 2011.
- Parents kept Sam at Loveland for 2010–11 and filed for a due process hearing on October 27, 2011 seeking reimbursement.
- Administrative hearings officer found DOE had predeter-mined placement, DOE’s proposed ILC was inappropriate, Loveland was an appropriate placement, but denied reimbursement as the Parents’ claim was filed more than 180 days after a “unilateral” placement (Haw. Rev. Stat. §302A-443(a)).
- District court reversed on the limitations issue, holding the placement was not unilateral (treated as continuation of a bilateral placement) and awarded reimbursement; it also awarded attorney’s fees at $285/hour.
- Ninth Circuit affirmed: (1) DOE breached IDEA and Loveland was appropriate, (2) the 180-day time bar did not apply because DOE tacitly consented to Loveland for 2010–11, and (3) $285/hour was a reasonable fee rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sam/Parents) | Defendant's Argument (DOE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2010–11 private placement was "unilateral" for purposes of Hawaii's 180‑day limitations rule | Placement was not unilateral because prior settlement, DOE communications, and long-term enrollment made Loveland effectively agreed or continued placement | Placement was unilateral; K.D. controls — prior settlement did not constitute placement or consent, so 180‑day bar applies | Placement was not unilateral; DOE tacitly consented by delaying a final alternative and thus 180‑day bar did not apply; reimbursement allowed |
| Whether district court abused discretion by using $285/hr rather than $375/hr for attorney's fees | $375/hr is reasonable based on declarations from local practitioners and counsel’s experience | $375 unsupported by prevailing market evidence; district court properly relied on local fee awards and its familiarity with community rates | $285/hr is reasonable; district court did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- K.D. v. Dep’t of Educ., 665 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2011) (defines “unilateral special education placement” and analyzes when settlement reimbursement does not convert placement to bilateral)
- D.C. v. Dep’t of Educ., 550 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (D. Haw. 2008) (district-court decision interpreting bilateral vs. unilateral placement in Hawaii facts)
- Clovis Unified Sch. Dist. v. Cal. Office of Admin. Hearings, 903 F.2d 635 (9th Cir. 1990) (once state affirms a private placement as appropriate, it becomes the stay-put educational location)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (controlling standard: reasonable attorney’s fees measured by prevailing market rates)
- Van Skike v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 557 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2009) (applicant bears burden to produce satisfactory evidence of prevailing market rates)