Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00441-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 20:1400 Civil Rights of Handicapped Child

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N.R., a minor, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-0441 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES

Defendant San Ramon Valley Unified School District moves for an award of attorneys’ fees in

the sum of $133,157.50 pursuant to contractual terms contained in settlement agreements between

plaintiffs and defendant. Having carefully considered parties’ papers and supporting declarations, the

Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2005, plaintiffs N.R., L.C., R.P., E.P., and N.B., all minors, filed a complaint

against defendant San Ramon Valley Unified School District (“District”), and Does 1-20. The

complaint alleged that each plaintiff was a student with one or more disabilities, and that they were

receiving behavioral services from Synergistic Interventions (“SI”), a non-public agency certified by

the State of California to provide intensive behavioral support services to special needs children in both

home and school settings. Complaint at ¶ 18. Plaintiffs alleged that these services were being provided

to each of the plaintiffs pursuant to either an Individual Education Program (“IEP”) or a settlement

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 130 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

agreement with the District, or both. Id.

Plaintiffs sought to prevent defendant from replacing SI with new behavioral services providers.

The complaint alleged three causes of action: (1) declaratory relief under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”) and the California Education Code; (2) injunctive

relief under the IDEA and California Education Code §§ 56000 et seq.; and (3) breach of contract for

alleged violations of settlement agreements between four of the five plaintiffs and defendant. Id. at

¶¶ 22-33. 

On November 28, 2005, this Court dismissed plaintiffs’ three causes of action without prejudice

and denied their request for leave to amend. The Court dismissed the first and second causes of action,

declaratory and injunctive relief under IDEA and the California Education Code, for lack of jurisdiction

due to plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Docket No. 84, Order Granting

Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“Order”) at 5:3-6. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’

breach of contract claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ contention

that the 2004 IDEA amendments retroactively conferred federal jurisdiction over claims to enforce

settlement agreements that resolve IDEA disputes. Id. at 6-7. The Court dismissed the breach of

contract claim without prejudice. Id. at 7:7.

DISCUSSION

 Defendant requests an award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $133,157.50 pursuant to its

settlement agreements with plaintiffs N.R., E.P., L.C., and N.B. Each of these settlement agreements

provides that “[i]f either party brings an action to enforce this Agreement the prevailing party shall be

entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Def’s Motion, Ex. A-D. Relying on these settlement agreements

and California Civil Code Section 1717, defendant argues it is entitled to attorneys’ fees because

plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims were based upon alleged breaches of the settlement agreements, and

defendant is the prevailing party in light of the Court’s dismissal of the complaint without leave to

amend. 

California Civil Code Section 1717 provides, in relevant part,

In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 130 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Section 1717(b)(2), which applies to voluntary dismissals or dismissals upon settlement, does

not apply to this case. 

2

 In Hsu, the defendant property owners were sued for breach of a real estate sales contract by

the prospective purchasers of the property. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants

after finding that no contract was ever formed between the parties. Without explanation, the trial court

denied the defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees under Section 1717. 

3

and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of

the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party

prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not,

shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. . . . 

The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing

on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final

judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the contract shall

be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may

also determine that there is no prevailing party on the contract for purposes of this

section.

Cal. Civ. Code § 1717(a), (b)(1) (emphasis added).1 In Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal. 4th 863 (1995), the

California Supreme Court instructed:

In deciding whether there is a “party prevailing on the contract,” the trial court is to

compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties’ demands on

those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial

briefs, opening statements, and similar sources. The prevailing party determination is to

be made only upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by a comparison of

the extent to which each party has succeeded and failed to succeed in its contentions.

Id. at 876 (quotations and citations omitted). The Hsu court held that a trial court has discretion to deny

fees under Section 1717 under certain circumstances, such as when the ostensibly prevailing party

receives only part of the relief sought. Id. at 875. However, when a party secures a “simple, unqualified

win” on the single contract claim contained in an action, as was the case in Hsu,

2

 the trial court does not

have discretion to find that there is no “prevailing party” under Section 1717. Id. at 876.

Here, although defendant is correct that it prevailed in this action, defendant did not prevail on

the contract claim. The Court dismissed plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim for lack of jurisdiction, and

made no determination whatsoever as to the merits of that claim. Plaintiffs remain free, after this

Court’s decision, to pursue their breach of contract claims in state court. See Idea Place Corp. v. Fried,

390 F. Supp. 2d 903, 905 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (holding defendant not entitled to fees under Section 1717

because court dismissed breach of contract case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). The cases cited

by defendant are distinguishable because they involve situations where a party specifically prevailed

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 130 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

on a contract claim. See, e.g., Diamond v. John Martin Co., 753 F.2d 1465, 1467 (9th Cir. 1985) (court

held no contract formed); Hsu, 9 Cal. 4th at 876 (trial court held no contract formed between parties);

Pacific Custom Tools, Inc. v. Turner Constr., 79 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 1273 (2000) (summary judgment

granted in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim). 

The Court is also not persuaded that Elms v. Builders Disbursements, Inc., 232 Cal. App. 3d 671

(1991), and Winick, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Co., 187 Cal. App. 3d 1502 (1986), compel a contrary

result. In Elms, a defendant was awarded fees under Section 1717 after a court dismissed the case for

failure to bring it to trial within five years. The Elms court found that the defendant had prevailed on

the contract claim because it had obtained all the relief it requested and had “plaintiff’s claim thrown

out completely.” 232 Cal. App. 3d at 674. Similarly, in Winick the court awarded a defendant fees

under a statute similar to Section 1717 after it obtained a dismissal with prejudice based upon the

plaintiff’s failure to serve and return the summons within three years. The Winick court noted that a

dismissal with prejudice operates like a final judgment, and that accordingly the defendant had achieved

a “total” victory. 187 Cal. App. 3d at 1508. 

Here, unlike Elms or Winick, the Court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim was

without prejudice. Thus, although defendant “prevailed” in the sense that it obtained a dismissal of that

claim, defendant’s victory is not a complete one because plaintiffs may pursue that claim in state court.

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES

defendant’s motion. (Docket No. 88). The Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to strike portions of

plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition, and accordingly STRIKES Section I and II of that brief as beyond

the scope of the supplemental briefing. (Docket No. 126).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2006 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 130 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Case 3:05-cv-00441-SI Document 130 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 5