Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04350/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04350-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. W.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-04350-HSG 

ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER 

REGARDING FEE REQUEST

Re: Dkt. No. 63

Pending before the Court is Defendant D.W.’s motion for attorney’s fees under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3). See Dkt. No. 63.

On September 21, 2017, the Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary 

judgment seeking review of the administrative law judge’s decision and affirmed the ALJ’s 

decision in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 55 at 28. The Clerk entered judgment that same day. See 

Dkt. No. 56.

D.W. brought a motion for attorney’s fees on February 27, 2018, more than five months 

after the entry of judgment. See Dkt. No. 57. But the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require 

that a motion for attorney’s fees be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment, unless a 

statute or court order modifies that deadline. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2). This 14-day time limit 

is “not jurisdictional.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 889 (9th Cir. 

2000) (internal quotation omitted). However, “[f]ailure to comply with the time limit in Rule 54 is 

a sufficient reason to deny a motion for fees absent some compelling showing of good cause.” In 

re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Kona Enterprises, 

Inc., 229 F.3d at 889–90).

On December 6, 2018, the Court gave counsel for D.W. an opportunity to make a 

Case 4:16-cv-04350-HSG Document 71 Filed 02/01/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“compelling showing of good cause” for why she failed to bring her motion for attorney’s fees 

within the statutory time period. See Dkt. No. 69. Counsel explained that she had believed the 

statute of limitations was based on an analogous state action, rather than Rule 54, citing Meridian 

Joint School District No. 2 v. D.A., 792 F.3 1054 (9th Cir. 2015). See Dkt. No. 70 at 1–2. In 

addition, counsel explained that she is a sole practitioner and had “a number of clients . . . that 

required her immediate attention” at the time judgment was entered. Id. at 3. Counsel requested 

that her late application be considered excusable neglect. Id. at 3–5. 

The Court finds that counsel for D.W. has made a sufficiently compelling showing of good 

cause as to why the motion for attorney’s fees was made more than 14 days after entry of 

judgment. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to allow D.W.’s claim for fees to 

move forward. See In re Veritas, 796 F.3d at 974 (noting that whether to allow late fee request “is 

a decision committed to the discretion of the district court”).

However, rather than adjudicate the individual line items of D.W.’s request for attorney’s 

fees and costs at this time, the Court will give the parties one more opportunity to come to an 

agreement on the proper amount of fees and costs. To that end, the Court ORDERS the parties to 

meet and confer regarding D.W.’s request, in the hope that they can come to a negotiated 

agreement. If the parties do not submit a statement by February 15 that they have reached an 

agreement, the Court will review D.W.’s and the District’s submissions, determine the appropriate 

amount of fees and costs, and order the District to pay them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

2/1/2019

Case 4:16-cv-04350-HSG Document 71 Filed 02/01/19 Page 2 of 2