On May 6, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a district’s motion to dismiss an attorney’s fees action in J.B. v. San Jose Unified School District, 2013 WL 1891398, No. C-12-06358 SI (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2013). This ruling is particularly relevant to all school districts which are currently receiving increasingly more requests for independent education evaluations (“IEEs”) than in past years. In short, the Court ruled that the withdrawal of the San Jose Unified School District’s due process hearing complaint to defend its own evaluation may have conferred on J.B. (“Student”) “prevailing party” status which would entitle him to reasonable attorneys’ fees.
In this case, Student was initially found eligible for special education services in 2005. However, in May 2011, after conducting a series of assessments, the District determined that Student was no longer eligible for special education services. After requesting, but being denied, another IEP in September 2011, Student requested an IEE at public expense. The District denied the request for an IEE and ultimately filed for a due process hearing within a mere two weeks, seeking orders from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) that 1) Student was not eligible for special education and 2) the District was not required to fund an IEE.
While the District’s due process case was pending, Student obtained his own private evaluation which found that Student had severe ADHD and depression. The IEP team met on June 13, 2012, to review the privately funded evaluation, and as a result of those findings found Student eligible for special education services. Six months after it filed for hearing, the District withdrew from its complaint the issue of Student’s eligibility for special education, but continued to assert that it properly denied Student’s request for an IEE. With only four days before the hearing was scheduled to begin, however, the District agreed to reimburse Student for the cost of the private evaluation. The next day, the District withdrew its due process complaint in its entirety. Student then brought this action seeking attorney’s fees incurred in defense of the District’s OAH hearing.
The Court found Student the “prevailing party” even though the underlying case had been voluntarily withdrawn by the District. In reaching this decision the Court noted that this case was “unique in its procedural posture,” as the District was the plaintiff in the OAH action even though Student was requesting the remedy of a publicly funded IEE. The Court highlighted the fact that after a year and a half of litigation Student ultimately received everything he asked for when the District reimbursed his parents for the cost of the IEE and found that he remained eligible for special education. Under these circumstances, the Court determined the District had control over both the complaint and the remedy. Additionally, Student was also successful in proving that the District was precluded from re-filing its complaint, because any subsequent due process filing to defend its own evaluation would constitute “unnecessary delay.”
Since the District voluntarily withdrew its request for a due process hearing and was deemed to be precluded from re-filing its complaint, the Court found that this change in circumstances “eliminated the right of the District to further contest the IEE” and enabled the Court to deem Student the “prevailing party.” The Court concluded that here the District’s voluntary withdrawal of its due process complaint to defend its own evaluation, coupled with the District’s ultimate reimbursement for the cost of the parentally requested IEE, constituted a material change in the legal relationship of the parties, such that Student was permitted to move forward with his fees action against the District.
What is particularly significant about this decision for school districts is the Court noted “there are special concerns for students who are forced to defend themselves against due process complaints” filed by school districts where the student has no leverage to enter into a judicially sanctioned consent decree. Here, the District did what it was required to do - file for hearing when it originally denied the IEE request - but it also offered the parents the requested remedy nearly seven months later and then withdrew its own case. Districts should be mindful of its course of action following an IEE request. Whether the district grants the IEE or initiates a due process action to defend its own evaluation, it should take action in a timely fashion so that parents are reasonably put on notice of the district’s intentions. Otherwise, courts will scrutinize the district’s progression of steps towards resolving the dispute and potentially penalize a district for not having acted much sooner, especially where parents are incurring attorney’s fees all the while.
- Partner
Elizabeth Rho-Ng represents California public school districts, county offices of education, independent/private schools, community college districts, and special education local plan areas (SELPA) in various aspects of ...
- Partner
Kristin Myers represents California school districts and county offices of education, specializing in special education and student discipline matters. Her practice focuses on Section 504 and IEP team meetings, resolution ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- Are You Ready for AB 2534? Our AB 2534 Toolkit Is Here to Help
- Don't Start from Scratch: Our AI Policy Toolkit Has Your District Covered
- Slurs and Epithets in the College Classroom: Are they protected speech?
- AALRR’s 2024 Title IX Virtual Academy
- Unmasking Deepfakes: Legal Insights for School Districts
- How to Address Employees’ Use of Social Media
- How far is too far? Searching Students’ Homes and Remote Test Proctoring
- Making Cybersecurity a Priority
- U.S. Department of Education Issues Proposed Amendments to Title IX Regulations
- Inadvertent Disability Discrimination May Lurk in Hiring Software, Artificial Intelligence and Algorithms
Popular Categories
- (55)
- (12)
- (81)
- (96)
- (43)
- (53)
- (22)
- (40)
- (11)
- (22)
- (6)
- (4)
- (3)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (4)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Steven J. Andelson
- Ernest L. Bell
- Matthew T. Besmer
- William M. Betley
- Mark R. Bresee
- W. Bryce Chastain
- J. Kayleigh Chevrier
- Andreas C. Chialtas
- Georgelle C. Cuevas
- Scott D. Danforth
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- Michael J. Davis
- Mary Beth de Goede
- Anthony P. De Marco
- Peter E. Denno
- William A. Diedrich
- A. Christopher Duran
- Amy W. Estrada
- Jennifer R. Fain
- Eve P. Fichtner
- Paul S. Fleck
- Mellissa E. Gallegos
- Stephanie L. Garrett
- Karen E. Gilyard
- Todd A. Goluba
- Jacqueline D. Hang
- Davina F. Harden
- Suparna Jain
- Jonathan Judge
- Warren S. Kinsler
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Tien P. Le
- Alex A. Lozada
- Kimberly C. Ludwin
- Bryan G. Martin
- Paul Z. McGlocklin
- Stephen M. McLoughlin
- Anna J. Miller
- Jacquelyn Takeda Morenz
- Kristin M. Myers
- Katrina J. Nepacena
- Adam J. Newman
- Anthony P. Niccoli
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Gabrielle E. Ortiz
- Beverly A. Ozowara
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Rebeca Quintana
- Elizabeth J. Rho-Ng
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Brooke Romero
- Alyssa Ruiz de Esparza
- Lauren Ruvalcaba
- Scott J. Sachs
- Gabriel A. Sandoval
- Peter A. Schaffert
- Constance J. Schwindt
- Justin R. Shinnefield
- Amber M. Solano
- David A. Soldani
- Dustin Stroeve
- Constance M. Taylor
- Mark W. Thompson
- Emaleigh Valdez
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Jabari A. Willis
- Sara C. Young
- Elizabeth Zamora-Mejia
Archives
2024
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
- December 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- January 2018
2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
2015
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012