Doe v. Boston Pub. Sch.

No. 03-1886 (1st Cir. Feb. 6, 2004) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55599

Description

First Circuit Holds that IDEA Plaintiff Who Obtains Desired Result Through Private Settlement Is Not “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney Fees

Abstract

Holding that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (Clearinghouse No. 53373), “is presumed to apply generally to all fee-shifting statutes that use the ‘prevailing party’ terminology, including the IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act],” the First Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. Plaintiff was entitled to services under the IDEA. Defendant rejected plaintiff’s father’s request for placement in a private residential school. Just before a Bureau of Special Education Appeals hearing, father accepted defendant’s offer of placement in a private therapeutic day school program. The hearing officer refused to read the placement into the record, denied plaintiff’s motion to affirm the placement as a final judgment, and dismissed plaintiff’s IDEA claims. Plaintiff sued in district court for attorney fees. Relying on Buckhannon’s definition of “prevailing party,” the district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff had obtained neither a judgment on the merits nor a court-ordered consent decree. On appeal, plaintiff urged the First Circuit to follow the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of Buckhannon set forth in Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation, 277 F.3d 1128, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 820 (2002??) (Clearinghouse No. 54396), which permitted attorney fees following private settlement of an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. The First Circuit described Barrios as “seem[ing] to contravene the Supreme Court’s unambiguous rejection of private settlement as sufficient grounds for ‘prevailing party’ status” and noted that the other three circuits (Second, Third, and Seventh) that had applied Buckhannon to the IDEA had ruled against plaintiffs. The First Circuit concluded that IDEA plaintiffs who reached private settlements “may not, in the absence of judicial imprimatur, be considered ‘prevailing parties.’”

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Docket Date
2004-02-06 00:00:00+00:00

Files

Filed under: