Rena C. v. Colonial Sch. Dist.

221 F.Supp.3d 634

RENA C., Individually and on Behalf of A.D.

v.COLONIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

CIVIL ACTION No. 15–1914

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed December 20, 2016

David J. Berney, Vanita Kalra, Law Offices of David J. Berney, Philadelphia, PA, for Rena C.

Karl A. Romberger, Jr., Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams LLP, New Britian, PA, for Colonial School District.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Savage, J.

In this action brought under 20 U.S.C. § 1415 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") for the sole purpose of obtaining attorney's fees, we see how the attorney's fees and the ten-day offer provisions work together to benefit the disabled child, not the attorneys or the school district. The attorney's fees provision is intended to encourage attorneys to represent children with disabilities. It is not meant to reward them for needlessly prolonging proceedings. The ten-day offer provision aims to motivate the parties to resolve the dispute early for the disabled student's benefit. It incentivizes the school district to offer the most appropriate education program sooner than later. At the same time, it works as a check, dissuading attorneys from protracting the proceedings in order to increase fees.

Within this context, our task is to determine whether Colonial School District made a valid written offer of settlement pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415. If so, we must decide whether plaintiff Rena C. obtained more favorable relief than was offered and whether she was substantially justified in rejecting the offer.

We conclude that the offer was valid and Rena did not obtain a more favorable result in the administrative proceedings than what Colonial had offered. Nor was she substantially justified in rejecting the offer. Therefore, we shall award her attorney's fees only for work performed before the offer expired.

Background

From second through sixth grades, Rena's child, A.D., attended public school in the Colonial School District. Concerned with A.D.'s progress at Colonial, Rena unilaterally enrolled her at Stratford Friends School in the seventh grade for the 2012–13 school year. Claiming that Colonial had failed to provide a free appropriate public education as required by the IDEA, Rena sought tuition reimbursement from Colonial.

After Colonial refused, Rena filed for due process review. On April 2, 2013, an administrative hearing officer found Rena's unilateral placement appropriate and Colonial's Individualized Education Program ("IEP") inadequate.¹ She awarded Rena two years of compensatory education, tuition reimbursement for the 2012–13 school year, and ongoing tuition reimbursement until Colonial convened an appropriate IEP meeting.²

Rena re-enrolled A.D. at Stratford Friends in the eighth grade for the 2013–14 school year, using compensatory education funds to pay the tuition. At the end of the school year, Colonial convened an IEP meeting. Rena disputed the adequacy of this IEP. On June 27, 2014, she requested mediation from the Pennsylvania Department of Education's Office of Dispute Resolution.

On August 13, 2014, Rena notified Colonial of her intent to enroll A.D. at Delaware Valley Friends School ("DVFS") for the 2014–15 school year. She requested reimbursement for tuition and related expenses.³ She did not advise Colonial that A.D. would be repeating eighth grade. On August 21, 2014, Colonial responded that it believed its new IEP was adequate and Rena could raise her concerns at the mediation.⁴

On the advice of counsel, Rena cancelled the mediation scheduled for August 28, 2014.⁵ Six days later, she filed an administrative complaint seeking declaratory relief and reimbursement for private school tuition and associated costs for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years.⁶

On September 18, 2014, Colonial sent Rena a ten-day offer letter pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)(I)–(III). No longer insisting on adhering to the IEP, Colonial offered "to pay private school tuition and transportation for Parent's unilateral placement at Delaware Valley Friends School."⁷ Rena did not respond to the written offer within ten days. Not until October 28, 2014, did she, through her attorney, formally dispute the validity of the ten-day letter, claiming it did not have school board approval and did not constitute an offer of judgment.⁸ She also complained it did not address pendency and attorney's fees.⁹

In the meantime, on October 8, 2014, not having received a response to the ten-day letter, Colonial sent a draft settlement agreement offering to pay four years of "base tuition" and transportation at DVFS. In response, Rena requested a fifth year at DVFS.¹⁰ She had neglected or intentionally failed to inform Colonial that A.D. was repeating eighth grade. On October 29, 2014, two days before the scheduled due process hearing, Colonial rejected Rena's request for a fifth year at DVFS, characterizing A.D.'s repeating eighth grade as a "game-changer."¹¹

To continue the negotiations, Rena, with Colonial's consent, requested a sixty-day conditional dismissal of the due process hearing.¹² On December 4, 2014, Colonial took the four-year deal off the table. One week later, it rejected Rena's request for pendency at DVFS.¹³ After negotiations failed, Rena reinstated the due process action on December 28, 2014.¹⁴

The hearing commenced on January 30, 2015.¹⁵ A second session, scheduled for February 17, 2015, was cancelled by the hearing officer.¹⁶ Finally, after several days mediating with the hearing officer,¹⁷ the parties stipulated to a consent order on March 10, 2015. The order provided tuition, one-on-one instructional support and transportation reimbursement for A.D.'s placement at DVFS,¹⁸ and pendency at DVFS.¹⁹ There was no provision for attorney's fees.

Fifteen days after the parties entered into the consent agreement, Rena's counsel demanded "a substantial five figure offer" to cover attorney's fees through the administrative proceedings.²⁰ Colonial responded on April 6, 2015, offering to pay attorney's fees incurred up until the September 18, 2014 ten-day offer.²¹ One week later, Rena filed her complaint seeking attorney's fees.

Attorney's Fees Under the IDEA

The prevailing party in an IDEA proceeding may be awarded reasonable attorney's fees. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). A parent who obtains judicially sanctioned relief on the merits may recover attorney's fees. Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res. , 532 U.S. 598, 605, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001) ; John T. ex rel. Paul T. v. Delaware Cty. Intermediate Unit , 318 F.3d 545, 557–58 (3d Cir. 2003). On the other hand, a prevailing school district may be awarded attorney's fees where the parent's complaint was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation," or she continued to litigate the matter after it had become clear that the litigation was "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II) ; e.g., Capital City Pub. Charter Sch. v. Gambale , 27 F.Supp.3d 121 (D.D.C. 2014). A prevailing school district may also be awarded attorney's fees where the parent's complaint was "presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, to cause unnecessary delay, or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(III) ; e.g., Alief Indep. Sch. Dist. v. C.C. ex rel. Kenneth C. , 655 F.3d 412 (5th Cir. 2011).

A school district may limit its exposure to attorney's fees by making an early written offer. A parent may not recover for an attorney's work done after she had rejected a written settlement offer that was more favorable than what she finally obtained. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D). Nevertheless, even if the final result is less favorable than the offer, a parent may still be awarded attorney's fees where she was a prevailing party and was "substantially justified" in rejecting the settlement offer. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(E).

The ten-day offer provision provides:

Attorneys' fees may not be awarded and related costs may not be reimbursed in any action or proceeding under this section for services performed subsequent to the time of a written offer of settlement to a parent if—

(I) the offer is made within the time prescribed by Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the case of an administrative proceeding, at any time more than 10 days before the proceeding begins;

(II) the offer is not accepted within 10 days; and

(III) the court or administrative hearing officer finds that the relief finally obtained by the parents is not more favorable to the parents than the offer of settlement.

Id. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i).

Rena contends there was no valid ten-day offer; and, if there was, the relief she ultimately obtained was more favorable than the offer and she was substantially justified in rejecting the offer. Colonial maintains that its September 18, 2014, letter was a valid ten-day offer and Rena did not receive more favorable relief than what it had offered.

Colonial does not dispute that Rena is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees up to September 28, 2014, ten days after Colonial made its settlement offer. It contends she is not entitled to attorney's fees for work performed after the ten-day offer had expired because she did not obtain a result that was better than what had been offered.

The Ten–Day Offer Letter Was Valid

Rena argues that the offer was invalid for two reasons. First, she contends it was not an offer of judgment. Second, it had not been approved by the school board. Neither of these arguments has merit.

Rena's contention that Colonial's ten-day offer letter was invalid because it was not an "offer of judgment" is baseless. Nothing in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) requires a school district to make a formal offer of judgment to invoke the provision's protection against accruing attorney's fees. The statutory reference to Rule 68 is to the time requirement, not to the form. A written offer containing the essential terms of the proffered plan is...