Tina M. Ex Rel. S.M. v. St. Tammany Parish School Board
816 F.3d 57
5th Cir.2016Background
- S. M., a minor with a disability, was subject to a proposed change in educational placement by the St. Tammany Parish School Board after an incident away from school.
- Plaintiffs sued for IDEA attorneys’ fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3), seeking fees related to administrative proceedings and the subsequent federal action.
- An ALJ granted a stay-put order allowing S. M. to remain in the prior in-class placement during proceedings.
- The district court treated the stay-put relief as a merits-equivalent victory, deeming Plaintiffs prevailing for fee-shifting purposes.
- Plaintiffs’ settlement terminated the merits proceeding, and later litigation in district court sought prevailing party status for fees.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that stay-put relief is not a qualifying 'prevailing party' outcome for IDEA fee-shifting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stay-put relief qualifies as prevailing party status | Plaintiffs contend stay-put is sufficient for prevailing party status. | Defendant argues stay-put is procedural, not merits-based relief that alters the legal relationship. | Stay-put is not prevailing party relief. |
| Is a stay-put order under IDEA a merits determination | Stay-put reflects interim protection, not merits on the merits. | Stay-put can resemble preliminary injunctive relief with merit-based implications. | Stay-put does not constitute a merits determination. |
| Does Buckhannon require a material alteration of the legal relationship for prevailing party status | Interim relief may suffice where relevant to the dispute. | Buckhannon requires a judgment on the merits or equivalent relief altering the legal relationship. | No material alteration here; not a prevailing party. |
| Whether Ninth–Seventh/Third–Circuit authorities support prevailing party status for stay-put | Some circuits allow fee entitlement based on stay-put relief. | Other circuits reject stay-put as sufficient for prevailing party status. | Consistent with other circuits; stay-put not enough. |
| Result of fee entitlement for this action | Prevailing party status should yield fees. | Plaintiffs are not prevailing parties, so no fees. | District court reversed; judgment for Defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (prevailing party requires material alteration of the legal relationship)
- Davis v. Abbott, 781 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2015) (relief on the merits is needed for prevailing party status)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (likelihood of success not the sole measure for injunctions)
- Wagner v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cty., 335 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2003) (stay-put is automatic, not merits-based relief)
- El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009) (requires judicial imprimatur on a material alteration to be prevailing)
- J.O. ex rel. C.O. v. Orange Township Bd. of Ed., 287 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2002) (interim relief not merit-based defeats prevailing-party status)
- Board of Education of Downers Grove Grade School District No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 1996) (stay-put fees not awarded when only interim relief obtained)
- Oak Park v. Nathan R., 199 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2000) (interim relief does not alter the parties’ relationship)
- Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 35 v. Mr. R., 321 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (prior stay-put relief not automatically fee-worthy)
- Termine ex rel. Termine v. William S. Hart Union High Sch. Dist., 288 F. App’x 360 (9th Cir. 2008) (interim relief alone not prevailing party)
- Dep’t of Educ. Haw. v. C.B. ex rel. Donna B., 2013 WL (D. Haw. 2013) (distinguishable facts; stay-put not alone determinative)