1
B. AND E.F. MALDONADO, Plaintiffs,
v.
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
No. 21-cv-06611-VKD
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
September 21, 2022
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 28
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
E.F. and B., his parent, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), incurred in connection with administrative proceedings and in this action. Dkt. Nos. 1, 23. Defendant Morgan Hill Unified School District (“District”) opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 24.
All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. Nos. 8, 14. On April 26, 2022, the Court heard argument on Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Dkt. No. 43. Having considered the parties' submissions and arguments, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion, and awards Plaintiffs $37,102.50 in attorneys' fees and $402 in costs.
I. BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a dispute between Plaintiffs and the District over the educational support provided to E.F., a student in the Morgan Hill Unified School District. The IDEA requires states receiving federal financial assistance to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. A
2
parent or guardian who believes that a school district is not complying with its obligations under the IDEA may request an impartial due process hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), among other remedies. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). A parent or guardian who is a prevailing party may file an action in federal district court seeking an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i).
A. Case 1
Plaintiffs filed their first administrative complaint, OAH Case No. 20200120801, against the District on December 23, 2020 (“Case 1”). Dkt. No. 23 at 4. This complaint asserted claims beginning with the 2017-18 school year and identified nine issues that required resolution. Id. On February 17, 2021, the parties participated in mediation, but that effort was unsuccessful. Id.
On February 22, 2021, an ALJ held a prehearing conference. Id. At the conference, the District argued that nearly all of Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that, accordingly, whether an exception to the statute of limitations applied, see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D), should be the first issue adjudicated at the due process hearing.[1] Dkt. No. 24 at 7. In response, Plaintiffs requested a continuance of the hearing so that they could correct some of the dates in the complaint. Dkt. No. 23 at 4; Dkt. No. 24 at 7. The ALJ denied Plaintiffs' request on the ground that Plaintiffs failed to show good cause for a continuance. Dkt. No. 24-2, Ex. 5. Plaintiffs then requested that the ALJ dismiss the complaint without prejudice, and the ALJ granted this request. Id.
One month later, Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal, which was denied. Id., Ex. 6. In denying the request for reconsideration, the ALJ characterized the relevant proceedings as follows:
Student's counsel did not file a pre-hearing conference statement identifying her witnesses and exhibits. Morgan Hill timely filed a prehearing conference statement and raised a statute of limitations defense on numerous issues
3
At the Prehearing conference, the ALJ discussed bifurcating the first day of hearing, March 2, and addressing whether eight issues should barred [sic] by the statute of limitations and therefore be dismissed. Student's counsel wanted to avoid bifurcating the hearing, and spontaneously asked to orally amend Student's due process request to make some corrections. The ALJ denied the impromptu oral motion to amend the complaint because it was not timely, it was not in writing, it was not accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, and it did not give proper notice given [sic] to opposing counsel
After the ALJ denied the oral motion to amend the due process request, Student's counsel requested a two-week continuance of the hearing so that she could amend the complaint and request another continuance of that hearing Student did not have a proposed due process complaint ready to file. The ALJ determined there was no good cause to continue the hearing. Student's counsel stated on the record she would withdraw her complaint and refile a new complaint. The ALJ agreed to dismiss Student's [complaint] without prejudice
In her moving papers for reconsideration, Student's counsel claims the ALJ was not impartial and did not allow her to explain her position during the 25-minute prehearing conference. Those claims are unfounded. At the beginning of the prehearing conference, Student's counsel answered ready for the due process hearing, actively participated in discussions, and within 25 minutes, voluntarily chose to withdraw her due process hearing request on the record. The ALJ granted her request without prejudice. Since that time, Student's counsel had the opportunity to file a new due process request with a newly assigned case number and with corrected dates but has not done so. Student's counsel's request seeking an Order to undo her own withdrawal is frivolous. The ALJ acted impartially when she scheduled the bifurcated due process hearing and denied oral motions which did not comply with the IDEA and the prehearing conference orders. ...
Student's counsel demonstrated a lack of preparation and organization when she was not prepared to go forward with the due process hearing with bifurcated issues, and withdrew the complaint at the prehearing conference. Student's counsel demonstrated a lack of preparation seeking to reverse that decision and revive the prior older due process complaint, unaltered, and without changes, without filing a corrected complaint in a new action. Student's moving papers confused the issues and the legal standards allowing the amendments of due process complaints. Student's attempt to orally amend the complaint at the prehearing conference, and the failure to rewrite and correct the complaint 30 days later, demonstrated a lack of preparation and organization. These factors did not demonstrate an improper purpose and did not reach the level of subjective bad faith on the part of Student's counsel.
Id. at ECF 123-124.
4
B. Case 2
On April 5, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second administrative complaint, OAH Case No. 2021040203, against the District (“Case 2”). Dkt. No. 23 at 4-5. Plaintiffs asserted that the District denied E.F. a FAPE during the 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21 academic years. Id. It raised the same nine issues Plaintiffs raised in Case 1 (with dates amended) and eight additional issues. Id.
The ALJ held a due process hearing over six days in June 2021. During the hearing, the ALJ clarified and reorganized the issues presented for decision as 40 sub-issues, including two sub-issues addressing whether the two-year statute of limitations should be extended. Dkt. No. 23-1 at 2-6. No party objected to the ALJ's list of issues. The hearing proceeded in two phases. Dkt. No. 24 at 8. Phase 1 addressed whether Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Id. Phase 2 addressed the merits of the claims not subject to the time bar.
The ALJ issued her decision in Case 2 on July 19, 2021. Dkt. No. 23-1. The ALJ held that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the two-year statute of limitations should be extended, and that therefore, “the time period at issue in this matter was determined to be April 5, 2019, through April 5, 2021.” Id. at ECF 15-16. Specifically, the ALJ concluded that alleged violations occurring before April 5, 2019-about half of the issues presented-were time barred. Id. at 15. With respect to the remaining issues, the ALJ decided in favor of the District on all but two issues. The ALJ decided that: (1) the “Student proved . . . that Morgan Hill denied Student a FAPE by impermissibly exiting Student from special education . . .” during the 2020-2021 school year (issue 5(d)), and (2) the District “denied Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student” in several areas (issue 5(a)). Id. at 18-19. The ALJ ordered the following relief:
1) The District must reinstate E.F. as eligible for special education under the categories of specific learning disabilities and other health impairment, pending further consideration by the IEP team.
2) The District must offer a plan to assess E.F. in the areas of psychoeducation, speech and language, and occupational therapy, and may proceed with the assessment if
5
E.F.'s parent does not consent to the plan.
3) The District must hold an IEP team meeting to review the assessments.
4) The District must provide E.F. 35 hours of individual specialized academic instruction, outside of the regular school day, by a credentialed special education teacher for the 2021-2022 academic year.
Id. at 51-52.
No party has appealed the ALJ's decision. Dkt. No. 23 at 5.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The IDEA provides that “the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i); Aguirre v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 461 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2006).
To be considered a “prevailing party” a parent must have achieved some “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.” Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 374 F.3d 857, 865 (9th. Cir. 2004) (applying definition of “prevailing party” in Buckhannon...
