P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 04-36141 (9th Cir. Amended Opinion Jan. 29, 2007)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that parents who entered into a settlement agreement involving special education services that was not approved by a court were not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), because they were not "prevailing parties" as defined by the act. After P.N.’s parents requested an administrative hearing, they were able to reach a settlement with the school district. The administrative law judge, at the parents’ request, dismissed the due process hearing. The parents subsequently filed in federal district court an action seeking attorneys’ fees and costs. The district court dismissed the parents’ suit.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001), which limited recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs under federal fee-shifting statutes to prevailing parties, the appeals court concluded that only a party who has succeeded on the merits or has entered into a settlement that received the official judicial imprimatur can be considered a prevailing party under IDEA and entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. In Buckhannon, the court noted, the Supreme Court had rejected the "catalyst theory," which "posited that a plaintiff was a ‘prevailing party’ if he or she achieves the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change in the defendant’s conduct." The Supreme Court found this approach too broad, noting that if parties were allowed to recover fees and costs with "no judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship," courts could award fees and costs to a party who filed a potentially meritless suit if the other party agreed to some changes merely to avoid the litigation. In reaching this result, the Ninth Circuit also held that "IDEA authorizes an action solely to recover attorneys’ fees and costs, even if there has been no administrative or judicial proceeding to enforce a student’s rights under the IDEA."
P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 04-36141 (9th Cir. Amended Opinion Jan. 29, 2007)
[Full opinion]