NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BUDDY WRIGHT AND AMY WRIGHT, No. 17-16970
Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01214-JLT
v.
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL MEMORANDUM
DISTRICT,
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: FISHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, District Judge.
Tehachapi Unified School District (“Appellant”) appeals the district court’s
award of attorneys’ fees to Buddy and Amy Wright (“Appellees”), parents of
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
A.W., who were prevailing parties in an administrative due process hearing
pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.1
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to prohibit
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)(i). The record reflects that
Appellees were primarily concerned about A.W.’s dangerous behavior at school,
and the district court correctly concluded that the Administrative Law Judge’s
Order offered comparatively more favorable provisions than Appellant’s May 2015
settlement offer for managing A.W.’s behavior. We deny Appellant’s motion for
judicial notice of extraneous materials submitted in connection with its argument,
but we note that those materials would not alter our analysis.
2. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in calculating the
amount of Appellees’ fee award. The court carefully examined the evidence and
made downward adjustments to account for block-billing, duplicative work,
clerical tasks, and tasks not directly related to the administrative proceedings at
issue. It reasonably concluded that no additional reductions were necessary to
account for Appellees’ partial success, particularly given that Appellees obtained
the relief that was most important to them.
1
Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of
the case, we do not recount it here.
2
3. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the
lodestar using hourly rates from the Central District of California. Although courts
ordinarily look to the prevailing market rates in the community where the fee
action was brought, Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984), they may look
outside the forum when the relevant community lacks attorneys with “the degree of
experience, expertise, or specialization required to handle properly the case.” Gates
v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992). Appellant acknowledges that
qualified counsel was unavailable in Appellees’ community, and it offers no
support for the argument that the district court was required to examine the
availability of counsel in other communities within the Eastern District of
California before considering the prevailing rates of the Central District.
AFFIRMED.
3
Buddy Wright v. Tehachapi Unified School Dist.
Combined Opinion