Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 31, 2011
No. 09-50965 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
GARY G., as next friend of G.G.,
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge:
El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) contests attorney’s fees
awarded Gary G., as next friend of G.G., under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108-446, § 615, 118 Stat. 2647, 2715-31, as
amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (2004). In doing so, the district court ruled Gary G.
was an IDEA prevailing party and entitled to $44,572 in fees because, before
filing this action, he received a favorable special-education administrative order,
following a due-process hearing. Prior to that hearing, however, he rejected
EPISD’s settlement offer (which did not include attorney’s fees) and, through
that hearing and this litigation, received less relief than provided by that offer.
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
Primarily at issue are: whether Gary G. is a prevailing party; and, even
if so, whether he is entitled to a fees award. Fees awarded for work performed
by Gary G.’s attorney through the date of that offer are AFFIRMED; for
subsequent to that date, VACATED.
I.
G.G. is an EPISD student with special-educational needs. In August 2003,
EPISD’s admission, review, and dismissal committee (ARDC) determined he was
entitled to 60 minutes of speech therapy per week. He did not receive the full
amount of that therapy, however, during, inter alia, the 2004-05 and 2005-06
school years (first and second-grade years). In that regard, he was deprived of
17.83 hours for the first year; 19.55, for the second.
Gary G. contacted EPISD by telephone on 6 September 2006 with concerns
regarding G.G.’s individual educational program (IEP) and his not receiving the
required therapy. Two days later, Gary G. attended an ARDC meeting to review
G.G.’s IEP and expressed concerns that his IEPs from previous schools were
improperly altered.
Regarding these concerns, Gary G. first conferred with his attorney that
29 August. Through 12 September, his attorney expended 13.8 hours reviewing
EPISD documents, researching IDEA, and drafting an administrative due-
process complaint.
By hand-delivered 12 September 2006 letter, EPISD admitted to Gary G.
its failure to provide G.G. with the full amount of therapy required by his IEP
for, inter alia, the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years and offered, in settlement,
56.5 hours of compensatory therapy, with progressive verification logs. The offer
did not include attorney’s fees. Gary G. rejected it.
The day after it made the offer, EPISD reiterated it to Gary G. at a review-
of-existing-evaluation-data meeting with the ARDC. It was again rejected.
Later that 13 September, Gary G. filed the above-described complaint with
the Texas Education Agency, asserting EPISD had deprived G.G. of a free
2
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
appropriate public education (FAPE) and requesting a due-process hearing. On
18 September, Gary G.’s attorney informed EPISD that communications to Gary
G. were to be made through that attorney.
A week later, in response to the due-process-hearing request, EPISD
reaffirmed its 12 September settlement offer. This reaffirmation agreed to
provide all requested relief.
On 26 September, the parties held a resolution meeting, at which, after
EPISD reiterated the settlement offer, Gary G.’s attorney inquired about
attorney’s fees. He was informed they were not justified because the written
offer had been made before both the due-process-hearing request and EPISD’s
being notified he was Gary G.’s attorney. That attorney did not: respond to the
fee explanation; provide EPISD with a fee demand; inform EPISD his client had
incurred attorney’s fees prior to the 12 September offer; or assert he began
representing Gary G. prior to then. The parties did not reach settlement at the
resolution meeting.
The due-process hearing was held on 1-2 November before a special
education hearing officer (SEHO), who, that 12 December, found EPISD had
denied G.G. a FAPE. Among other things, the SEHO ruled: Texas’ one-year
statute of limitations for requesting special-education due-process hearings
barred Gary G.’s claim for the 2004-05 school year, and no actions by EPISD
warranted tolling that limitations period; and EPISD was to provide 19.55 hours
of speech services to compensate for the 2005-06 school year, as well as provide
written logs to Gary G. reflecting compliance.
On 9 March 2007, Gary G. filed this action on behalf of G.G., challenging
the SEHO’s limitations ruling and, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415, seeking
attorney’s fees as a prevailing party. In response, EPISD: challenged both the
SEHO’s jurisdiction and the finding that it had deprived G.G. a FAPE; denied
Gary G.’s entitlement to attorney’s fees; and requested them.
3
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
That December, the district court: dismissed, without prejudice, EPISD’s
fees claim; held Gary G.’s fees claim in abeyance; and referred the parties’
challenges to the SEHO’s decision to a magistrate judge for a report and
recommendation. In September 2008, that report and recommendation
provided: EPISD’s jurisdictional challenge should be dismissed; the SEHO’s
limitations decision should be affirmed; and Gary G. should be an IDEA
prevailing party because the SEHO ordered relief materially changing the legal
relationship between Gary G. and EPISD.
Later that month, the district court adopted the report and
recommendation. It referred Gary G.’s fees request to the magistrate judge for
a report and recommendation.
In that regard, Gary G.’s attorney requested a fees award in accordance
with the lodestar method, stating $235.00 and $260.00 were reasonable hourly
rates, respectively, for the administrative proceeding and this action. Gary G.’s
attorney claimed 86 hours’ work for the former; 140.6, for the latter.
Accordingly, Gary G. requested a total of $56,556.00. EPISD responded, inter
alia, that Gary G. was not entitled to attorney’s fees because: the relief received
was less favorable than EPISD had offered; and he had protracted the litigation.
In September 2009, the magistrate judge recommended, inter alia:
although EPISD had offered a settlement agreement prior to the administrative
proceeding, it would have been unenforceable; Gary G. did not unreasonably
protract litigation because EPISD’s offer did not include attorney’s fees and
required him to dismiss all of his claims with prejudice; Gary G. obtained only
limited success because he both lost his challenge to the 2004-05 school-year
claim’s being time-barred and was awarded a lesser amount of compensatory
hours than had been offered by EPISD; and, therefore, Gary G. should receive
only 50 percent of the requested fees: $28,278.00.
Later that month, the district court adopted those recommendations in
part and ruled: Gary G. is a prevailing party because he secured a procedural
4
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
judgment and judicial imprimatur; he did not unreasonably protract the
litigation because he was justified in rejecting EPISD’s settlement offer lacking
attorney’s fees; but, an amount less than that requested was warranted because
Gary G. was only partially successful, due to his failed challenge for the 2004-05
school year. As a result, the court awarded fees for the total hours expended for
the administrative proceeding, but it reduced the hours expended for this action
by one-third. Accordingly, Gary G. was awarded $44,572.00.
II.
Gary G. has not cross-appealed. And, many of the issues at hand,
including justiciability, were resolved approximately a year ago by El Paso
Independent School District v. Richard R., 591 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009), cert.
denied, 130 S. Ct. 3467 (2010). Also at issue are: whether a party who rejects
a settlement offer and obtains from either an administrative hearing officer or
the district court no more educational relief than that offered by the settlement
is an IDEA “prevailing party” for attorney’s fees purposes; and, even if so,
whether that prevailing party, if offered all requested educational relief, but not
attorney’s fees, is not substantially justified in rejecting that offer or
unreasonably protracts final resolution of the controversy, requiring part, or all,
of the requested fees being denied.
Before turning to the issues, it bears noting that Gary G.’s attorney and
EPISD have been at odds in several actions, including Richard R. This
litigation, most especially this matter’s not being resolved following Richard R.’s
being rendered approximately a year ago and only a few months after the fees
award at issue, is a classic example of wasted time, effort, and scarce financial
and judicial resources. Perhaps most important, the manner in which this
proceeding has been conducted, at different times by each party following the 12
September 2006 settlement offer, runs contrary to IDEA’s purposes.
5
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
A.
EPISD’s justiciability claims are nearly identical to its claims rejected
recently in both Richard R. and A.O. v. El Paso Independent School District, 368
F. App’x 539 (5th Cir. 2010). Matters of justiciability are, of course, reviewed de
novo. E.g., Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 324 (5th Cir.
2009); Victor v. Grand Casino-Coushatta, 359 F.3d 782, 783 n.3 (5th Cir. 2004).
In Richard R. and A.O., as here, EPISD contended plaintiff did not present
a justiciable case or controversy because it had offered plaintiff “all requested
relief” before administrative proceedings or litigation ensued. See A.O., 368 F.
App’x at 540-41; Richard R., 591 F.3d at 423 n.5. In A.O. our court held, albeit
in an unpublished opinion, that EPISD’s pre-hearing settlement offer did not
deprive either the hearing officer or the district court of subject-matter
jurisdiction. 368 F. App’x at 541. In Richard R., our court ruled: because
EPISD rejected plaintiff’s offer for an agreed order, claiming disputed issues,
there was a justiciable controversy. 591 F.3d at 423 n.5.
Our court held jurisdiction present in both A.O. and Richard R. where
EPISD had offered “‘all requested educational relief and reasonable attorney’s
fees, leaving absolutely no need to continue litigating’”. 368 F. App’x at 540
(quoting 591 F.3d at 430). “The IDEA itself therefore presumes that a
controversy will remain justiciable even though a school district offers full relief
in a settlement offer.” 368 F. App’x at 541 n.4.
Here, EPISD’s offer did not include attorney’s fees. Even if it was for “all
requested relief”, Gary G.’s rejecting it did not render this action non-justiciable.
B.
To receive attorney’s fees under IDEA, the requesting party must be a
“prevailing party”. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i); see also Jason D.W. v.
Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 205, 209 (5th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health &
Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001), “whether a party is a prevailing party
6
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
‘is a legal question subject to de novo review’”. Richard R., 591 F.3d at 422-23
(quoting Bailey v. Mississippi, 407 F.3d 684, 687 (5th Cir. 2005)).
Left unresolved by Richard R. is “whether a party who rejects a settlement
offer and obtains from an administrative hearing officer or the district court no
more educational benefit than the settlement offered is technically a ‘prevailing
party’”. Id. at 425. For the following reasons, we join three of our sister circuits
in holding such a party has that status.
As provided in Richard R., to achieve prevailing-party status, a party
must attain both: a remedy that alters the legal relationship between the
parties and fosters IDEA’s purposes; and “some judicial imprimatur on a
material alteration of the legal relationship”. Id. at 421-22. For the latter,
Richard R. held: “An administrative hearing officer’s order provides the
requisite ‘judicial imprimatur’ for a party to be considered a ‘prevailing party’ for
attorney’s fee purposes, despite the fact that the administrative hearing officer
does not have the authority to award attorney’s fees”. Id. at 422 n.4.
In contending Gary G. is not a prevailing party, EPISD maintains: the
SEHO’s order did not alter the legal relationship between it and Gary G.; and
it did not promote IDEA’s purposes because Gary G. obtained less relief from the
order than he would have from EPISD’s offer. Gary G. counters that order did
alter that legal relationship because: it made the grant of compensatory speech
services enforceable, and it fostered IDEA’s purposes by enabling G.G. to receive
the FAPE he had been otherwise denied.
IDEA provides that a party may not recover attorneys’ fees for services
performed subsequent to a written settlement offer being made, if the relief
obtained is not more favorable than that offer. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). In
Richard R., our court ruled that this provision “tacitly assumes that a party may
reject such an offer and nevertheless attain prevailing party status: the statute
permits an award of attorney’s fees for work performed prior to the written offer
of settlement, and prevailing party status is a predicate for any such award”.
7
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
591 F.3d at 424 (emphasis in original); see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i). The D.C.,
Third, and Seventh Circuits have held a party who rejects a settlement offer and
later obtains no more than what was offered “still ‘prevails’ by obtaining
judicially sanctioned relief”. Richard R., 591 F.3d at 424; see Alegria ex rel.
Alegria v. District of Columbia, 391 F.3d 262, 267 (D.C. Cir. 2004); T.D. v.
LaGrange Sch. Dist. No. 102, 349 F.3d 469, 476 (7th Cir. 2003); John T. ex rel
Paul T. v. Delaware County Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 557 (3rd Cir. 2003).
In this regard, as recognized in Richard R., our court has held previously
that parties who extend litigation may be denied prevailing-party status. 591
F.3d at 425. In Michael T., an unpublished opinion, our court ruled: “we cannot
say that the district court clearly erred in determining that the purposes of the
IDEA are not fostered by encouraging parents of potentially disabled children
to withhold consent to an initial assessment in order to obtain prevailing party
status”. Michael T. v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 37 F. App’x 714, 714 (5th Cir.
2002).
As noted in Michael T., IDEA’s purposes are not fostered by withholding
consent to a reasonable settlement solely in order to obtain attorney’s fees. As
discussed above, however, it is the remedy that must foster IDEA’s purposes.
See Richard R., 591 F.3d at 421-22 (noting the obtained remedy must foster
IDEA’s purposes). Although Michael T. is persuasive, the primary reason our
court there affirmed the denial of attorney’s fees was because of the “clear error”
standard of review, which no longer applies post-Buckhannon, and because our
court used the term “prevailing party” as being synonymous with “attorney’s
fees”, which is not always the case. See 37 F. App’x at 714.
The SEHO’s order, the requisite judicial imprimatur, both altered the legal
relationship between the parties and fostered IDEA’s purposes by ensuring G.G.
will receive a FAPE. Of course, had the settlement offer been accepted, it would
have done the same, but that is not the issue. In short, although EPISD is
correct that Gary G. obtained less relief from the order than he would have from
8
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
the settlement offer, that does not prevent his being a “prevailing party” for
IDEA purposes. But, whether he, as a prevailing party, is entitled to attorney’s
fees is a separate question.
C.
“A finding that a party is a prevailing party only makes him eligible to
receive attorneys’ fees under the IDEA; it does not automatically entitle him to
recover the full amount that he spent on legal representation.” Jason D.W., 158
F.3d at 209 (emphasis added). A fees award is reviewed for abuse of discretion,
with the underlying factual findings being reviewed only for clear error. Id. at
208.
At issue is whether a parent who rejects a settlement offer that includes
all requested educational relief, but not attorney’s fees, is substantially justified
in, or unreasonably protracts the final resolution of the controversy by, rejecting
it. Along that line, IDEA provides through the above-referenced
§ 1415(i)(3)(D)(i):
Attorneys’ fees may not be awarded . . . 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 . . . the offer is made . . . in the case of an
administrative proceeding, at any time more than 10
days before the proceeding begins; . . . the offer is not
accepted within 10 days; and . . . 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.
20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i) (emphasis added).
1.
Gary G. maintains the 12 September 2006 settlement offer was not valid
because no IDEA proceeding was begun until his due-process complaint was filed
the next day. IDEA does not, however, require a proceeding to have begun
before a settlement offer can be made. Instead, the above-quoted
§1415(i)(3)(D)(i) applies when “the offer is made . . . in the case of an
9
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
administrative proceeding, at any time more than 10 days before the proceeding
begins”. (Emphasis added.) In Richard R., our court held: “the district court
abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees to [Richard R.] for work
performed after EPISD’s written settlement offer—formalizing the offer made
at the resolution meeting—which was made the day of the resolution meeting
and more than ten days before the administrative proceeding”. 591 F.3d at 425.
EPISD’s written settlement offer, as found by the district court, was made
on 12 September; the resolution meeting was held two weeks later; and the due-
process hearing (administrative proceeding) began on 1 November. Therefore,
the offer was made more than 10 days before the administrative proceeding
began. Accordingly, § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), with its possible fee-bar, is in play. Next
to be considered is IDEA’s exception to that subsection.
2.
That exception provides: “Notwithstanding [§ 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)], an award
of attorneys’ fees . . . may be made to a parent who is the prevailing party and
who was substantially justified in rejecting the settlement offer.” 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(3)(E) (emphasis added). Accordingly, because the district court found
Gary G. received less educational relief (as a result of the court’s upholding the
time-bar for the 2004-05 school year) than had he accepted the offer, see the
above-quoted § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), next at issue is whether he was “substantially
justified” in rejecting it. Gary G. contends he was because: the offer, according
to him, was not enforceable in federal court due to Texas’ sovereign immunity;
and it did not include attorney’s fees.
a.
Regarding whether the offer was enforceable in federal court, IDEA’s main
goal is for school districts and parents to work together to achieve a level of
meaningful education for students. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 247-48 (5th Cir. 1997). This goal is effectuated by
IDEA’s requirement that, “prior to the opportunity for an impartial due process
10
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
hearing[,] . . . the local education agency shall convene a meeting with the
parents and the relevant . . . members of the . . . [educational program team] . . .”
to resolve cooperatively their differences. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i). This
meeting, referred to as the “resolution meeting”, was held on 26 September 2006,
as discussed supra.
For obvious reasons, IDEA ensures that settlement agreements reached
at that meeting will be enforceable: “In the case that a resolution is reached to
resolve the complaint at a . . . [resolution meeting,] . . . the parties shall execute
a legally binding agreement that is . . . enforceable in any State court of
competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States”. 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(f)(1)(B)(iii)(II). Regarding the latter, IDEA provides that “district courts
of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this section
without regard to the amount in controversy”. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(A) (referring to
20 U.S.C. § 1415 generally).
In Richard R., our court disagreed with the district court in that action
finding “EPISD’s settlement offer would not have been enforceable if it had been
reduced to an agreement”. 591 F.3d at 426. There, the district court ruled that
“Texas had not waived its immunity from suit in state court for the type of
settlement offered by EPISD, and accordingly, EPISD’s settlement offer would
not have been enforceable in state court”. Id. Our court held the district court
erred when it concluded Richard R. would not have been able to enforce the
settlement and, therefore, had an interest in continuing litigation in order to
obtain an enforceable order. Id. It “determine[d] that a settlement agreement
reached at the resolution meeting would have been enforceable in federal court”.
Id. The same situation is at hand.
The settlement offer was outstanding when Gary G. and his attorney
attended the resolution meeting two weeks later. In addition, the offer had been
reaffirmed to them in writing a day earlier and was reiterated at the meeting.
Because federal courts can enforce IDEA settlement agreements reached at a
11
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
resolution meeting and Gary G. had the opportunity to accept the settlement
agreement at that 26 September 2006 meeting, he was not “substantially
justified” in rejecting EPISD’s settlement offer based on claimed
unenforceability. See also H.C. ex rel. L.C. v. Colton-Pierrepont Cent. Sch. Dist.,
341 F. App’x 687, 690 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Congress has expressly provided for
enforcement of IDEA settlement agreements in federal district courts when the
agreement at issue was entered into . . . at a ‘resolution session’ required by
§ 1415(f)(1)(B) . . . .”).
In Richard R., our court stated: “Here, EPISD offered [Richard R.] all of
his requested educational relief at the resolution meeting. We conclude that if
[Richard R.] had accepted EPISD’s offer, he could have enforced the resulting
settlement agreement in federal court”. 591 F.3d at 428. Although no
settlement agreement was reached at the resolution meeting in this action, it
was again offered at that meeting, and, therefore, would have been enforceable
had it been accepted.
b.
Regarding Gary G.’s contention that he was also “substantially justified”
in rejecting the offer because it did not include attorney’s fees, we do not hold
that every plaintiff rejecting a settlement offer because it does not include such
fees is, per se, not substantially justified in rejecting it. On this record, however,
and for the following reasons, Gary G. was not “substantially justified” in
rejecting the offer in order to obtain the fees.
As noted, the district court treated the 12 September offer, made more
than ten days before the due-process hearing, as a valid “written offer of
settlement”. The affidavit by Gary G.’s attorney in this action in support of the
fees request reflects that his work, prior to the resolution meeting, was limited,
inter alia, to preparation and filing of the due-process complaint and preparation
for the resolution meeting; the entries do not show the attorney and Gary G.
discussed the settlement offer. (The identical entries that come closest to
12
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
reflecting the offer’s possibly being discussed are for before the resolution
meeting, for 21 and 26 September, for which 1.8 and 2.6 hours, respectively,
were claimed: “Conference with [Gary G.] re resolution meeting and course of
action”.)
As also noted, Gary G.’s attorney had performed only 13.8 hours of work
through the date of the settlement offer and, again, has no entry for the fee-
request for time expended discussing that offer with Gary G. It is unknown
whether the 3.6 hours claimed for work on the day of the offer were expended
before it was hand delivered to Gary G. In any event, instead of accepting the
offer, having that acceptance being made enforceable two weeks later at the
resolution meeting, and paying a relatively small amount of attorney’s fees, Gary
G. caused this matter to continue for another three years (including this appeal
by EPISD, it’s now lasted over four).
Because Gary G. was not substantially justified in rejecting EPISD’s 12
September 2006 offer, the district court abused its discretion for attorney’s fees
awarded for work performed subsequent to the date it was made, as further
discussed infra. Next at issue is whether the court abused its discretion for fees
awarded for work through that offer-date.
3.
As discussed, Gary G.’s attorney expended 13.8 hours on this matter
between 29 August and 12 September 2006. Needless to say, almost all of his
work was performed subsequent to that 12 September offer-date. The district
court agreed with that attorney’s claim to a $235.00 hourly rate for the
administrative portion of this matter. One final IDEA qualification remains to
be considered in deciding whether fees should be awarded for the attorney’s
work through the offer-date.
That IDEA provision states: “whenever the court finds . . . the parent, or
the parent’s attorney, during the course of the action or proceeding,
unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the controversy . . . the court shall
13
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
reduce, accordingly, the amount of the attorneys’ fee awarded . . . .” 20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(i)(3)(F)(i) (emphasis added). Richard R. held this provision permits
reducing a fee award for work performed prior to a settlement offer: “when a
party rejects an offer of settlement and later achieves at an administrative or
judicial proceeding no more than what was previously offered, a court may, but
is not required to, award reasonable attorney’s fees for work performed prior to
the written offer of settlement under § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i)”. 591 F.3d at 429
(emphasis in original). There, our court found Richard R., represented by the
same attorney who represents Gary G., unreasonably protracted the litigation
because EPISD “wisely included the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees to
[Richard R.] as part of its settlement offer”. Id. at 429-30. Consequently, there
was “absolutely no need to continue litigating” after the settlement offer. Id. at
430. As a result, a fee-award was not allowed for work prior to the offer. Id.
We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Gary G.
fees incurred through the 12 September offer-date because Gary G. was not
alone in protracting this matter. EPISD played a role in doing so. We need not
discuss all the twists and turns, and resulting conduct in this proceeding, such
as the time-bar imposed by the SEHO and upheld in district court or EPISD’s
unsuccessful jurisdictional claims.
For example, as discussed, Gary G. rejected the 56.5 hours in
compensatory speech therapy offered by EPISD, and received only 19.55 hours
from the SEHO; in short, he received far less relief from the SEHO than he
would have from accepting EPISD’s offer. And, as discussed supra, he was not
“substantially justified” in rejecting that offer. On the other hand, and as
another example, EPISD omitted reasonable attorney’s fees from the settlement
offer. And, after EPISD, at the latest, became aware at the resolution meeting,
two weeks after that offer, that Gary G. had counsel, it chose not to offer fees
clearly provided for by IDEA.
14
Case: 09-50965 Document: 00511366362 Page: 15 Date Filed: 01/31/2011
No. 09-50965
Accordingly, although it is a close question, we do not hold Gary G.
unreasonably protracted the resolution of this controversy and, therefore, hold
the district court did not abuse its discretion for fees awarded Gary G. for all of
the claimed work through the 12 September offer-date. As noted, the record
does not reflect whether the work performed by Gary G.’s attorney on the offer-
date (3.6 hours preparing the administrative complaint) was after the offer was
received. Work had been performed concerning that complaint prior to that
date. The offer-date work will be included in that for which fees will be awarded.
At $235.00 per hour, with 13.8 hours having been spent on this matter through
the offer-date, Gary G. is awarded attorney’s fees of $3,243.00.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, that portion of the judgment awarding
attorney’s fees to Gary G. for work performed by his attorney through the date
of the 12 September 2006 written settlement offer is AFFIRMED; that portion
awarding fees subsequent to that date, VACATED.
AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART
15