Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50332/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50332-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
A.O.
Appellee
El Paso Independent School District
Appellant

Document Text:

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50332

A.O., as next friend M.W.,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

EL PASO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:07-CV-243

Before SMITH, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

El Paso Independent School District appeals the district court’s denial of

its Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the

entry of judgment in favor of A.O. as next friend of M.W. We affirm. 

M.W. is a student with special educational needs in the El Paso

Independent School District (“EPISD”). On behalf of M.W., A.O. filed a request

for a special education due process hearing with the Texas Education Agency,

alleging that the Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) created for M.W. was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 3, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-50332 Document: 00511041099 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2010
No. 09-50332

 EPISD also stated that it would consider documentation in support of a larger

1

attorney’s fee award.

We review the district court’s denial of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion de novo, applying the

2

same standard as the district court. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir.

2001).

2

deficient and that, because of its deficiencies, M.W. had been denied her right to

a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (“IDEA”). As relief, A.O. sought an order directing EPISD to

convene an Admission, Review, and Dismissal committee to develop a new IEP,

and requested an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. 

Before the due process hearing took place, EPISD offered to settle the case.

It promised to convene the ARD committee and develop a new IEP for M.W., and

offered to compensate A.O. for $3,000 in attorney’s fees. At a pre-hearing 1

conference, EPISD again offered this resolution, but A.O. did not accept. The

hearing officer subsequently granted EPISD’s motion to dismiss the case as moot

because EPISD had offered in full the relief requested by A.O.

A.O. then filed a complaint in the Western District of Texas, alleging that

the hearing officer improperly denied her a due process hearing under the IDEA.

EPISD responded by, inter alia, filing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion arguing that the

district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. According to EPISD, its

settlement offer rendered the case moot and deprived A.O. of standing. It

further contended that the case was not ripe and that A.O. failed to exhaust

administrative remedies. The district court found that it had subject matter

jurisdiction and remanded the case for a due process hearing. EPISD timely

filed the instant appeal of the denial of its 12(b)(1) motion.2

This appeal presents nearly identical justiciability issues as another case

recently decided by this court. See El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 591

F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2009). In Richard R., a child with special educational needs

 Case: 09-50332 Document: 00511041099 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2010
No. 09-50332

 In its two-sentence treatment of these arguments, the court relied on the fact that 3

EPISD would not consent to an “agreed order” memorializing the terms of the settlement offer

because EPISD considered there to be “genuine issues of fact and law in dispute” between the

parties. Richard R., 591 F.3d at 423 n.5. A.O.’s attorney proposed an “agreed order” here as

well, and EPISD apparently never consented.

That such a settlement offer does not end the underlying case or controversy is 4

supported by the IDEA’s text. Title 20, United States Code, section 1415(i)(3)(D)(i), governing

awards of attorney’s fees to prevailing parties in IDEA litigation, provides that “fees may not

be awarded . . . in any action . . . for services performed subsequent to the time of a written

offer of settlement . . . [if] the court . . . finds that the relief finally obtained . . . is not more

favorable . . . than the offer of settlement.” In interpreting this provision in Richard R., the

court stated that this “provision tacitly assumes that a party may reject such an offer and

nevertheless attain prevailing party status.” 591 F.3d at 424. The IDEA itself therefore

presumes that a controversy will remain justiciable even though a school district offers full

relief in a settlement offer.

3

had obtained a favorable judgment in a state due process hearing and sued

EPISD for attorney’s fees under the IDEA. As here, EPISD had offered the

requested relief in a settlement before the due process hearing but its offer was

rejected. On appeal, EPISD argued that the plaintiff “did not present a

justiciable case or controversy to either the state due process hearing officer or

the district court” because it offered the plaintiff all requested relief before

litigation. Id. at 423 n.5. The court summarily rejected EPISD’s justiciability

arguments in a footnote. 

3

Like EPISD’s offer to A.O., the settlement in Richard R. offered the

plaintiff “all requested educational relief and reasonable attorney’s fees, leaving

absolutely no need to continue litigating.” Id. at 430 (emphasis omitted). The

court nonetheless declined to dismiss the case on justiciability grounds. Instead,

the court held that the plaintiff’s decision to decline the school district’s

settlement offer of all requested relief precluded an award of attorney’s fees

under the IDEA because the plaintiff was not “substantially justified” in

rejecting such an offer and because doing so unnecessarily protracted litigation.

Id. at 425–430. Considering A.O.’s rejection of EPISD’s settlement offer, she 4

 Case: 09-50332 Document: 00511041099 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/03/2010
No. 09-50332

4

would presumably face the same difficulties if she tries to recover her attorney’s

fees. EPISD has not cited any case, however, convincing the court that its offer

deprived either the hearing officer or the district court of subject matter

jurisdiction. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 09-50332 Document: 00511041099 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/03/2010