2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-12-2008 

# P ardini v . Alghn y Int e rmedi at e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1403

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" P ar d ini v . Al ghn y Int e rme d i at e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1095. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/10951 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 07- 1403

D A V ID A N D JE N N IF E R P A R D IN I, o n b e h a lf

o f th e m se lv e s a n d o n b e h a lf o f th eir m ino r ch il d , G E O R G IA P A R D IN I, A p p e llan ts

v . ALLEG HEN Y I NTER M EDI ATE U NI T; B A R B A R A M I N Z E N B E R G , Pr ogr am D i r ect or
O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C
. C i v. N o. 03- 00725) H onor abl e Thom as M
. H ar di m an, D i s t r i ctJ udge

A r gued M ar ch 6, 2008

B E FO R E : FI SH E R , G R E E N B E R G , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay12, 2008)

D avi d D
. Par di ni ( ar gued) 3256 W al t ham A ve. Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15216 A tto rn e yf

o r A p p e llan ts2 Wi l l i a m C
. An d r e ws C hr i s t i na Lane ( ar gued) A ndr ew s & Pr i ce 1500 A r dm or e B l vd. Sui t e 506 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15221 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT
G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udge.

I
. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY T hi s m at t ercomes on be for e thi s cour ton appea l fr om an or derent er ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ton J anuary12, 2007, deny i ng pl ai nt i ffs D avi d Par di ni and hi s w i fe J enni ferPar di ni s ’ m ot i on s eeki ng at t or ney ’ s fee s i n a l aw s ui tw hi ch theyfi l ed on beha l f of t hemsel ves and thei rdaught erG eor gi a Par di ni pur s uantt o t he I ndi vi dual s w i t h D i s abi l i t i es i n E ducat i on A ct , 20 U
. S. C
. § 1400 ets eq. ( “I D E A ”)
. Speci fi cal l y , the Par di ni s s eek a t t orney ’ s fee s f o r D a v id P a rd in i, an a tto rn e yw h o h a s re p re se n ted h is f a m ilyin its d isp u te w ith d e f

e n d a n ts, A lleg h e n yIn ter m e d iate U n it (“A IU ”) a n d B arb ara M inze n b erg , it s p rog ram d ir ec tor, c o n c e rn in g se rv ice s d e f e n d a n ts w e re re q u ire d to p ro v id e to Ge o r g i a P a r d i n i p u r s u a n tt o th e I DE A. F o rth e r e a s o n s th a twe w i l l di s cus s , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng t he P ardi nis ’ m oti on for at t orney ’s fees. In a sm u c h a s w e d e sc rib e d th e f a c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d o f

th is cas e i n ourear l i eropi ni on i n t hi s l i t i gat i on, Par di ni v. A l l egheny In ter m e d iate U n it, 4 2 0 F .3 d 1 8 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), w e w ill se t f o rth o n ly th e f

a c ts n e c e s s a ry f

o r d is p o s itio n o f

th e p re s e n t a p p e a l. G eor gi a Par di ni , w ho w as born on A pr i l 18, 2000, s uffe r s fr om c e re b ra l p a lsy . A f

ter h e r f irst b irth d a y , the A lli a n c e f o r In f a n ts and Toddl er s ( “A I T ”) began s uppl y i ng G eor gi a w i t h s ervi ces3 p u rsu a n t to a n In d iv id u a lize d F a m ilyS e rv ice P lan (“ IF S P ” ), in a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t h e r e q u i r e me n t s o f th e I DEA
. Th e I DEA fur t herr equi r es t hata chi l d r ece i vi ng s ervi ces pur s uantt o an I FSP t r ans i t i on t o an I ndi vi dual i zed Educat i on Pr ogr am (“ I E P”) w hen s he r eac hes t he age of thr ee. T o pr epar e forthe tr ans i t i on, th e A IU e v a lu a ted G e o rg ia to d e ter m in e w h a t se rv ice s it sh o u ld i ncl ude i n t he new I E P. A ft eri tconduct ed i t s eval uat i on, the A I U pr ovi ded an I E P forG eor gi a’ s par ent s t o r evi ew and s i gn. D a vi d a nd J e nn i fe rPa r di ni r e fu s e d t o s i gn the I EP, how ever , beca us e i tdi d noti ncl ude w hati s know n as conduct i ve educa t i on forG eor gi a, a s ervi ce s he had be en r ece i vi ng pur s uant to h e r IF S P . T h e A IU , in tu rn , ref u se d to c h a n g e th e IE P to i ncl ude conduc t i ve educ at i on forG eor gi a. T he Par di ni s and the A IU co n ti n u ed to d isag ree , an d , as a co n seq u en ce , the A IU term inated all o f G eo rgia’s se rvice s fo u r da y s af ter he r th ir d bi r t hday
. T he Par di ni s r es ponded t o t he A I U ’ s t erm i nat i on of s ervi ces w i t h a l et t erdemandi ng thati tr ei ns t at e the s ervi ces p u rsua n t t o the “ stay -pu t” req u ir em en t of 2 0 U
. S
. C
. § 1 4 1 5 (j ). A s t he part i es s oughtt o r es ol ve thei rdi s put e thr ough an admi ni s t r at i ve due pr oces s hear i ng, on M ay21, 2003, the Par di ni s fi l ed thi s act i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ts eeki ng an or der re q u irin g th e A IU to c o n tin u e p ro v id in g in ter im se rv ice s to G eor gi a. O n M ay30, 2003, the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the Par di ni s ’ m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, and on A ugus t29, 2 0 0 3 , the D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e P ard inis’ cl aim fo r a perm anenti nj unct i on agai ns tthe A I U
. Par di ni v. A l l egheny I nt erm edi at e U ni t , 280 F. Supp. 2d 447 ( W
. D
. Pa. 2003)
. T he Par di ni s t hen appe al ed. O n A u g u st 29 , 2 0 0 5 , w e re v erse d the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of the Par di ni s ’ cl ai m and r emanded the ca s e “f orthe co u rtto d eterm ine th e a m o u n t of reim b u rsem en t th e P ard inis are e n tit led to a s w e ll as th e a m o u n t o f a n ya tto rn e y s f

e e s.” P a rd in i, 420 F. 3d at192. T he A I U fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr ehea r i ng buton O ct ober5, 2005, w e deni ed the pet i t i on. O n O ct ober13, 2005, w e ent er ed a j udgm enti n l i eu of a form al m andat e vac at i ng the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the Par di ni s ’ cl ai m and “r emand[i ng] [ th e m a tter] to th e D istric t C o u rt f o r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith4 th is o p in io n .” J u d g m e n t ( O c to b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 5 ). T he Par di ni s s ubs equent l yfi l ed a mot i on i n t he D i s t r i ct C our ts eeki ng at t or ney ’ s fee s . O n A ugus t18, 2006, the m agi s t r at e j udge i s s ued a mem or andum re comm endi ng deni al of t he mot i on. Par di ni v. A l l eghenyI nt erm edi at e U ni t , C i v. N o. 03- 725, 2006 W L 3940563 ( W
. D
. Pa. A ug. 18, 2006)
. T he P ard inis fil ed o b

jecti o n s w ith the D istri ct C o u rt , b u t on Jan u ary 12, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed the Par di ni s ’ obj ect i ons and adopt ed the magi s t r at e j udge’ s fi ndi ngs and conc l us i ons deny i ng t hei rm ot i on forat t or ney ’ s fee s . Par di ni v. A l l egheny I nt erm edi at e U ni t , C i v. N o. 03- 725, 2007 W L 128875 ( W
. D
. Pa. Ja n . 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e P a rd in is n o w a p p e a l.

I I
. J UR I SDI CTI ON AN D STA ND AR D O F REVI EW T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on overthi s cas e pur s uant t o 20 U
. S. C
. § 1415( i ) ( 3) ( A ) and 28 U
. S. C
. § 1331. W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 9 1
. We revi ew t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s den i al of att orney ’s fees for an ab use of di s cr et i on. See P. N
. v. C l ement on B d. of Educ. , 442 F. 3d 8 4 8 , 8 5 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e re is “ [ a ]n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . . . w hen a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on r es t s upon a cl ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ct , an err antconcl us i on of l aw oran i m pr oper appl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t
. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. “H ow ever , i f the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the fe es bas ed on i t s concl us i on on ques t i ons of l aw , ourr evi ew i s pl enary . ” I d.

I I I
. DI S CU S S I ON T h e P a r d i n i s s e e k a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s p u r s u a n tt o th e I DE A, w hi ch pr ovi des t hat“[i ] n anyact i on orpr ocee di ng br oughtunder th is s e c tio n , the c o u rt, i n its d isc re tio n , m a ya w a rd re a so n a b le a tto rn e y s’ f

e e s a s p a rt o f

th e c o sts to a p re v a ili n g p a rtyw h o is t h e p a r e n to f

a c h i l d wi t h a d i s a b i l i t y . ” 2 0 U. S
. C. § 1 4 1 5 (i )(3)(B ).5 I n W oods i de v. School D i s t r i ctof Phi l adel phi a B oar d of E ducat i on, 248 F. 3d 129 ( 3d C i r . 2001) , w e addr es s ed al m os tthe s a m e q u e s tio n th a t w e n o w a d d re s s , i.e ., “ w h e th e r [ 2 0 U .S .C . § 1415( i ) ( 3) ( B ) ] author i zes an aw ar d of att orneyfee s t o an at t or ney - par entw ho r epr es ent ed hi s chi l d i n admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs undert he I D E A
. ” W oods i de, 248 F. 3d at130. T he o n lyd if f e re n c e b e tw e e n th is c a se a n d W o o d sid e is th a t in th is c a s e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f

o ra t t o r n e y’ s f

e e s i s f o rth e a t t o r n e ypar ent ’ s r epr es ent at i on of hi s chi l d i n bot h admi ni s t r at i ve and fede r al cour tpr ocee di ngs . T he pl ai nt i ff i n W oods i de, a l i cens ed Penns y l vani a att or ney , w as the fa t herof a c hi l d w ho had a condi t i on cal l ed K l i nefe l t erSyndr om e. I d. T he pl ai nt i ff r eques t ed an a dm i ni s t r at i ve due pr oces s hear i ng t o det erm i ne w hethert he s chool di s tr i cti n w hi ch hi s s on w as enr ol l ed w as pr ovi di ng adequa t e s ervi ces forthe chi l d’ s di s abi l i t i es as r equi r ed byt he I D E A
. I d. T he pl ai nt i ff r epr es ent ed hi s s on dur i ng t he hea r i ng, w hi ch l as t ed s even s es s i ons overa per i od of t hr ee mont hs
. I d. A ft erthe hea r i ng, the s chool di s t r i ctw as or der ed t o pr ovi de the r el i ef w hi ch the pl ai nt i ff s ought
. I d. T he p l a i n t i f f t h e n f i l e d s u i ti n th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp u r s u a n tt o th e I DEA a g a in st th e sc h o o l d istric t f o r a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s th a t h e c laim e d to have e arned i n r epr es ent i ng hi s s on i n pr ocee di ngs underthe ID E A . Id
. O n appea l , w e addr es s ed w hetherthe I D E A ’ s pr ovi s i on f o r a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s a p p lied to a tto rn e y -p a re n ts re p re se n tin g th e ir chi l dr en i n admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs br oughtpur s uantt o t he s t atut e. I d. I n doi ng s o, w e di s cus s ed the C our tof A ppeal s for t he Four t h C i r cui t ’ s opi ni on i n D oe v. B oar d of Educat i on of B al t i m or e C ount y , 165 F. 3d 260 ( 4th C i r . 1998) , and the Supr eme C our t ’ s opi ni on i n K ayv. E hr l er , 499 U
. S. 432, 111 S. C t
. 1435 ( 1991)
. T he courtof appe al s i n D oe deni ed at t or ney ’ s fee s t o at t or ney - par ent s i n I D E A cas es , r eas oni ng that
“‘ fee

- s hi ft i ng s t atut es ar e meantt o encour age the ef fec t i ve p ro se c u tio n o f

m e rito rio u s c laim s,’” “ ‘th e yse e k to a c h iev e th is purpos e byencour agi ng par t i es t o obt ai n i ndepende nt r epr es ent at i on, ’ ” and “ ‘ [l ] i ke att orney s appea r i ng pr o s e, at t or ney - par ent s ar e gene r al l yi ncapa bl e of e xer ci s i ng s uffi ci ent i ndepende ntj udgm enton behal f of thei rchi l dr en t o ens ur e that r eas on, r athert han emot i on w i l l di ct at e the conduc tof the6 l i t i gat i on. ’ ” W oods i de, 248 F. 3d at131 ( quot i ng D oe, 165 F. 3d at263 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) )
. W e al s o not ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s s t at ementi n K aythat“‘ [t ] he s t atut orypol i cyof furtheri ng t he succ essful prosecuti on of m eri t ori ou s [ci vil ri gh t s] c laim s is b e tter s e rv e d b ya ru le th a t cr e a tes a n in c e n tiv e to re tain [i ndepende nt ] couns el , ’ r atherthan a rul e thatcr eat es an i ncent i ve t o r epr es entone’ s s el f. ” I d. ( quot i ng K ay , 499 U
. S. at 438, 111 S. C t
. at1438)
. Fol l ow i ng the r eas oni ng i n bot h D oe and K ay , w e conc l uded i n W oods i de that“an a t t orney - par ent cannotr ece i ve att or neyfee s forw or k r epr es ent i ng hi s m i nor c h ild in p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r t h e ID E A .” Id
. N ot w i t hs t andi ng W oods i de the Par di ni s offe rthr ee ar gum ent s i n s uppor tof thei rar gum ents eeki ng r ever s al of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of att orney ’ s fee s . Fi r s t , theyar gue that in o u r e a rlier d e c isio n re m a n d in g th is c a se to th e D istric t C o u rt, w e i ns t ruct ed the courtt o “det erm i ne the amountof r ei m bur s ementt he Par di ni s ar e ent i t l ed t o as w el l as the amount of anyat t or ney s fee s , ” Par di ni , 420 F. 3d at192, and thatour instruction co n sti tutes a d ec isi o n b ythis C o u rtthat theyare ent i t l ed t o at t or ney ’ s fee s . Second, theyar gue thatW oods i de s houl d be di s t i ngui s hed fr om the pr es entcas e bec aus e the at t or ney - par enti n W oods i de s oughtat t orney ’ s fee s onl yfor w or k per form ed dur i ng admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs w her eas the P a rd in is s e e k f

e e s f o r w o rk p e rf

o rm e d d u rin g b o th admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs and i n t hi s fede r al cour tcas e. T hi r d, t heyargue t hat i nasm uch as our earl i er deci si on i n thi s case confl i ct s w i t h W oods i de, w e s houl d fol l ow ourear l i erPar di ni d ec isi o n as th e g o v ern ing p rec ed en t r athe r th an W o o d side
. In addi t i on t o t hei rar gum ent s w i t h r es pectt o att orney ’ s fee s , the Par di ni s ar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n notal l ow i ng them t o r ecove rcos t s t hatt heypai d fors ervi ces forG eor gi a Par di ni ot hert han the cos t s forconduct i ve educ at i on. Forr eas ons that w e w i l l expl ai n, w e fi nd none of thes e ar gum ent s t o be per s uas i ve. A
. W hetherO ur E arl i er D eci si on i n T his C ase D ec ided the Issu e o f W h ethe r th e P ard inis A re E nt i t l ed t o A t t orney ’ s Fees7 T he mostdi ffi cul ti s s ue on thi s appea l conce r ns the appl i cat i on of ourdi s pos i t i on of the Par di ni s ’ fi r s tappea l and t hus w e begi n ourdi s cus s i on of the mer i t s of thi s appea l by addr es s i ng t he s cope of ourdeci s i on r emandi ng thi s cas e t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t
. “I ti s axi om at i c thaton r emand forfur t her p roc ee d ing s af

ter de cisi o n b yan ap p ell ate c o u rt , the tri al co u rt m us tpr ocee d i n acc or dance w i t h t he mandat e and the l aw of the cas e as es t abl i s hed on appe al
. ” B anker s T rus tC o. v. B ethl ehem S teel C o rp., 7 6 1 F
. 2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 9 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 5 ). “A tr ial co u rt m us ti m pl ementbot h t he l ett erand the s pi r i tof the mandat e, t aki ng i nt o acc ountt he appe l l at e court ’ s opi ni on and the ci r cumst ance s i tembra ces . ” I d. “The m andat e and the opi ni on m us tbe cons i der ed t ogetheri n t hei rent i r etyw i t h par t i cul ar r efe r ence t o t he i s s ues cons i der ed. ” I d. at950. “Fr om the pr opos i t i on t hata tr i al cour tm us tadher e t o t he dec i s i on and m andat e of a n appel l at e courtther e fol l ow s the l ong- s ett l ed corol l aryt hat upon rem and , i tm aycon si der, as a m at t er of fi rs t i m pr es s i on, t hos e i s s ues notexpr es s l yori m pl i ci t l ydi s pos ed of b yth e a p p e lla te d e c is io n .” Id
. A ppl i cat i on of the rul es us ual l ygoverni ng r emands mi ght p o se a p ro b lem if

o u r f irst P a rd in i o p in io n w a s in c o n sis ten t w ith W o o d sid e b u t w e a re sa tisf ied th a t W o o d sid e a n d o u r m a n d a te on t he fi r s tPar di ni appea l ar e noti ncons i s t ent
. W e have r eac hed t hi s concl us i on beca us e t aken t ogether , ouri ns t ruct i ons t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tand the ci r cumst ance s of ourdeci s i on di d not r equi r e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgr antthe Par di ni s at t orney ’ s fee s butr atherr equi r ed thati taddr es s and dec i de the i s s ue of w hether t he fe es s houl d be al l ow ed. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s A ugus t29, 2003 deci s i on – w hi ch w e r evi ew ed and ul t i m at el yr ever s ed – d id n o t dec ide w h ethe r th e P ard inis w ere en ti tl ed to attorn ey ’s fee s becaus e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of thei rcl ai m had r ender ed thati s s ue moot
. A ccor di ngl y , notunt i l w e r ever s ed the D istric t C o u rt a n d re m a n d e d th e c a se to th a t co u rt w a s it con front ed w i t h the i ssue of w hethert o all ow at t orney ’s fees, and thus i ti s onl yon t he pr es entappea l thatw e have been c o n s tr a in e d to c o n s id e r w h e th e r t h e yb e a w a rd e d
. A l t hough t he Par di ni s ar e corr ectthati n ourear l i er deci s i on w e di s cus s ed the i s s ue of a t t orney ’ s fee s , ourdi s cus s i on8 w a s p re lim in a ry, le a v in g m u c h f o r t h e D is tr ic t C o u rt to a d d re s s . I ndeed, t he di s cus s i on appea r s excl us i vel yi n footnot e 4, w hi ch i n fu l l st at es: A t oral arg u m en t, the p arti es in fo rm ed the c o u rt t h a tt h e Pa r d i n i s e v e n tu a l l ya g r e e d t o a n I EP th a t d id n o t in c lu d e c o n d u c tiv e e d u c a tio n . H ow ever , s i nce w e conc l ude thatG eor gi a w as enti t l ed to r ecei ve co nd ucti ve ed ucati on as a par tof G eor gi a’ s I E P unt i l the di s put e w as r es ol ved, t heyar e ent i t l ed t o r ei m bur s ementof t he out

- of- pocketexpens e r es ul t i ng fr om the A IU ’s f a ilu re to c o m p ly w ith 2 0 U .S .C . § 1 4 1 5 (j ) a s w e ll a s re a s o n a b le a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s . W e do nott hi nk t hatM r . Par di ni i s pr ecl uded fr om r ecove r i ng r eas onabl e att orney s ’ fee s o th e rw ise p ro v id e d f

o r u n d e r th e ID E A m e re ly b e c a u se h e is s e e k in g re im b u rse m e n t f o r h is o w n e x p e n s e s w h ile re p re s e n tin g h is d a u g h te r. I n Z uckerv. W es t i nghous e, 374 F. 3d 221, 227 ( 3d C i r . 2004) w e r ecogni zed that , abs entan expr es s i on of congr es s i onal i nt entt o t he con t rary , a plai nti ff’s ent i t l em ent t o att orney s’ fee s i s notel i m i nat ed mer el ybeca us e he/ s he w as p ro se co u n sel. A lth o u g h w e w ere there di s cus s i ng t he r i ghtof a pr o s e pl ai nt i ff i n a s har ehol der ’ s der i vat i ve ac t i on, thatconcl us i on is n o t lim ite d to th a t s p e c if ic typ e o f

a c tio n . Si nce M r . Par di ni r eques t ed ‘ s uch otherr el i ef a s th e C o u rt d e e m s f

itt in g a n d p ro p e r,’ in h is c o m p lain t, he is e n tit led to re c o v e r re a so n a b le at t or ney s ’ fee s t o t he ext entthathe i s the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y. Par di ni , 420 F. 3d at183 n. 4. A l t hough w e under s t and w hythe Par di ni s m i ghtcons t rue t hes e s t at ement s as cons t i tut i ng a dec i s i on di r ect i ng an aw ar d of a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s, a c lo se re a d in g o f

it sh o w s th a t th e f

o o tn o te9 offe r s not hi ng m or e than pr el i m i naryobs ervat i ons . I n footnot e 4 w e ci t ed t o Z uckerv. W es t i nghous e El ectr i c, 374 F. 3d 221 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , forthe pr opos i t i on thatw e s houl d l ook t o t he r el evants t atut e t o det erm i ne w hethera fe e- s hi ft i ng pr ovi s i on ex tend s to p ro se att o rne y s. O u r de cisi o n in Z u ck er, ho w ev er, show s that the inquirydid not end w i t h thatob servati on becau se w e ul t i m at el ydeni ed att orney ’ s fee s t o t he s har ehol der

- obj ect or w ho s oughtfee s i n t hatcas e. I ndeed, w e r eac hed thatconcl us i on o n lyaf ter discu ssing an d ad o p ti n g the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s re a so n in g in K a y , a c a se w h ich a lso g u id e d o u r d e c isio n in W oods i de, and af

t erdes cr i bi ng W oods i de appr ovi ngl y . See i d. at227- 29. M or eover , w e s peci fi cal l ys t at ed i n footnot e 4 i n Par di ni t hatt he Par di ni s onl yw oul d be ent i t l ed t o att orney ’ s fee s “otherw i s e pr ovi ded forunderthe I D E A
. ” Par di ni , 420 F. 3d at 1 8 3 n . 4
. W e the ref

o re d id n o t determ ine w h ethe r th e ID E A ’s fe e-sh ift ing p rov isi o n all o w s the P ard inis t o rec o v er a tt o rne y ’s fee s and i ns t ead l eftt hatm at t erforthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o deci de on r emand. T he D i s t r i ctC our t , i n turn, corr ect l yfol l ow ed our hol di ng i n W oods i de, w her e w e cons t rued the s ame fee- s hi ft i ng pr ovi s i on i n t he I D E A i nvol ved her e and c oncl uded thati tdoes n o t p ro v id e f

o r a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s in th e c a se o f

a tto rn e y -p a re n ts w ho r epr es entt hei rchi l dr en i n cas es br oughtpur s uantt o t he ID E A . S e e W o o d sid e , 2 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 (sta tin g th a t “[ t]h e so le i s s ue her e i s w hether[20 U
. S. C
. § 1415( i ) ( 3) ( B ) ] author i zes an a w a rd o f a tto rn e yf

e e s to a n a tto rn e y -p a re n t w h o re p re se n ted h is c h ild in a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r t h e ID E A ” ). A s i de fr om footnot e 4, the onl ym ent i on of att orney ’ s fee s i n ourear l i erPar di ni deci s i on appea r s i n t he conc l us i on, w hi ch s t at es : “W e w i l l t her efor e r ever s e the dec i s i on of the D i s t r i ct C our tand r emand fort he courtt o det erm i ne . . . the amountof anyat t or ney s fee s . ” Par di ni , 420 F. 3d at192. T he i ncl us i on of t he w or d “any ” furt hers uppor t s the vi ew thatthe gr antof at t or ney ’ s fee s w as a pos s i bi l i t yr athera ce r t ai nty . T hat pos s i bi l i t yatt he veryl eas tw as cont i ngenton t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hethers uch fe es ar e “pr ovi ded for undert he I D E A , ” i d. at183 n. 4, an i s s ue thatw e l eftt o t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o deci de.10 B. W h e t h e rW o o d s i d e Co n c e r n e d Re p r e s e n t a t i o n By an A t t or ney - Par enti n A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocee di ngs O n ly W e do notfi nd per s uas i ve the Par di ni s ’ ar gum entthat W oods i de does notgovern t hi s cas e bec aus e the att orney - par ent i n t hatcas e pr ovi ded r epr es ent at i on onl yi n admi ni s t r at i ve p ro c e e d in g s w h e re a s D a v id P a rd in i re p re se n ted th e P a rd in is in b o t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d th i s f e d e r a l c o u r tc a s e . We d id n o t p re d ica te o u r re a so n in g in W o o d sid e lea d in g u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e ID E A d id n o t allo w th e a tto rn e y -p a re n t to r ecove rat t or ney ’ s fee s i n r epr es ent i ng hi s m i norchi l d on that di s t i nct i on. R ather , w e r eac hed ourconcl us i on bas ed on our obs ervat i on t hat“att or ney - par ent s ar e gene r al l yi ncapa bl e of e x e rc isin g su f

f icie n t in d e p e n d e n t ju d g m e n t o n b e h a lf o f th e ir c h ild re n to e n su re th a t re a so n , rath e r th a n e m o tio n w ill d icta te t he conduc tof the l i t i gat i on, ’ ” and thatgr ant i ng at t orney ’ s fee s t o t hem w oul d frus t r at e the fe e- s hi ft i ng pr ovi s i on’ s purpos e of “enc our ag[i ng] t he ef

fec t i ve pr os ecut i on of m er i t or i ous cl ai m s . ” W oods i de, 248 F. 3d at131 ( quot i ng D oe, 165 F. 3d at263 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) )
. T he Par di ni s fai l t o offe r a n ye x p lan a tio n f

o r w h yo u r c o n c e rn s in su c h c a se s d o n o t ap p ly i f t h e r e i s l i t i g a t i o n b e y o n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s . We th e re f o re re jec t th e ir a rg u m e n t in th is re sp e c t. C
. W hetherW oods i de orPar di ni C ons t i tut es the G overni ng Pr ece dentW i t h R es pectt o t he I s s ue of W hetheran A t t orney - Par entM ayR ecove r At t o r n e y ’ s Fe e s Pu r s u a n tt o th e I DEA F i nall y , w e rej ectthe P ardi nis ’ ar gu m ent that our fi rs t d e c isio n in P a rd in i ra th e r th a n o u r still ea rlier d e c isio n in W oods i de governs t he ques t i on of w hetheran att orney - par ent as s er t i ng cl ai m s pur s uantt o t he I D E A on behal f of hi s m i nor c h ild c a n re c o v e r a tto rn e y ’s f e e s p u rsu a n t to th e sta tu te. It is cl eart hateven i f ourdeci s i on on t he Par di ni s ’ fi r s tappea l contr avene d W oods i de byi ns t ruct i ng the D i s t r i ctC our tt o gr ant at t or ney ’ s fee s ( w hi ch, as w e have expl ai ned, i tdi d notdo) , and t he D i s t r i ctC our tbyr eas on of thatopi ni on and the acc om pany i ng j udgm entw as r equi r ed t o aw ar d D avi d Par di niJ udge R oth does notb e l i e v e thatthe D i s t r i ctC our ton 1 r emand w oul d have be en compel l ed t o aw ar d the fe es i n vi ew of th e f a c t th a t W o o d s id e w a s b in d in g o n su b se q u e n t p a n e ls o f th is C our tand the D i s t r i ctC our tw oul d have t o t ake acc ount of thatfac t a n d ru le in a m a n n e r th a t w a s c o n sis ten t w ith C irc u it p re c e d e n t. M o r e o v e r , i f

t h e c a s e h a d r e tu r n e d t o u s o n a s u b s e q u e n ta p p e a l , we w o u ld h av e h ad to ov erturn the D istri ct C o u rt ’s aw ard o f a tt o rne y ’s fees i n v i ew of the bindi ng natur e of the W oo dsi de d eci si on . T hu s, j udi ci al economyw oul d s ugges tt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ton r emand rul e, as i tdi d, cons i s t ent l yw i t h W oods i de. 11 a tto rn e y ’s f

e e s , w e m u s t f

o llo w W o o d s id e o n th is a p p e a l. 1 Sect i on 9. 1 of the I nt ernal O per at i ng Pr ocedur es ( “I O Ps” ) of the T hir d C i rcui tC ou rtof A pp eal s provi des: Pol i cyof A voi di ng I ntr a- ci r cui tC onfl i ctof P re c e d e n t. I ti s t he tr adi t i on of thi s courtthatthe hol di ng of a pane l i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on i s bi ndi ng on s ubs equentpanel s . T hus , no s ubs equentpanel overrul es t he hol di ng i n a pr ece dent i al opi ni on of a pr evi ous panel
. C our ten banc cons i der at i on i s r equi r ed t o do s o. T h ird C irc u it IO P 9 .1 . A c c o rd in g ly , “[ t]h is C irc u it h a s lo n g h e ld th a t if its c a se s c o n f

lict, th e e a rlier is th e c o n tro lli n g a u th o rity and the l at t eri s i neff

ect i ve as pr ece dent s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 365 F. 3d 213, 213 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( decl i ni ng t o us e the st and ard of revi ew setforth in a case w i t hin the cir cuitbecau se t hatcas e “ne veracknow l edged thatthe pr ece dent s [w i t hi n t he ci r cui t ] us ed [a di ffe r ents t andar d of r evi ew ] ” and di d not “exp l ai n w hy[t he C ou rt ] br ok e w i t h those preceden t s”) ; see al so H o ll an d v . N
. J. D ep ’to f C o rrecti o n s, 2 4 6 F
. 3 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 8 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ [ T ]o th e e x ten t th a t [ a c a se w ith in th e c irc u it] is re a d to b e in c o n s is te n t w ith e a rl ie r c a s e la w , th e e a rl ie r c a s e la w . . . contr ol s ”) ; O
. H om m el C o. v. Ferr o C orp. , 659 F. 2d 340, 354 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( “[A ] panel of thi s courtcannotoverrul e a pr i orO f cou rs e, t he si tuati o n w ou l d b e differ ent i f t here w as a 2 l at ers t atu torychange i n the contr ol l i ng s t atut oryl aw aft erour ea r l i e r o p i n i o n o r i f t h e Su p r e me Cou r t f i l e d a n opi ni on in c o n s is te n t w ith o u r e a rl ie r o p in io n . 12 p a n e l p re c e d e n t. T o th e e x ten t th a t [ th e late r c a se ] is i ncons i s t entw i t h [the ea r l i ercas e, the l at ercas e] m us tbe d e e m e d w ith o u t e f

f e c t.” ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). C lea rlyo u r In ter n a l O p e ra tin g P ro c e d u re s a n d p re c e d e n ts pr ovi de foran appr oach w hi ch di ffe r s fr om thatus ed i n t he s i tuat i on i n w hi ch ther e ar e tw o i r r econc i l abl e s t atut es i n w hi ch ci r cumst ance t he s econd w i l l be dee m ed t o i m pl i edl yr epea l the fi r s t
. B r anch v. Sm i t h, 538 U
. S. 254, 273, 123 S. C t
. 1429, 1441 ( 2003)
. T her efor e, i nas m uch as ourdeci s i on i n W oods i de ad d resse d the s am e issu e w h ich w e n o w fa ce in this ca se, w e a re bound byt he hol di ng i n W oods i de r egar dl es s of anyconfl i ct i ng l anguage , i f ther e i s any , i n a s ubs equentdeci s i on byanother panel of thi s C our t
. I nas m uch as a pane l of thi s C our tr ather 2 t han the C our ten banc i s s ued ourear l i erdeci s i on i n Par di ni , the deci s i on coul d notover turn ourhol di ng i n W oods i de, even i f the panel s oughtt o do t hat
. See Thi r d C i r cui tI O P 9. 1. I n r eac hi ng ourr es ul tw e have notover l ooked the l aw of th e c a se d o c trin e w h ich p ro v id e s th a t “o n e p a n e l o f a n a p p e llate cour tgener al l yw i l l notr econs i derques t i ons thatanotherpanel has deci ded on a pr i orappea l i n t he s ame cas e. ” I n r e C i t yof P h i l a . L i t i g . , 1 5 8 F
. 3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )
. Ra t h e r , we rec o g n ize tha t th e d o ctri n e d o es n o t app lyin the ex tr ao rdin ary ci r cumst ance w hen “the ea r l i erdeci s i on w as cl ear l yerr oneous a n d w o u ld c re a te m a n if e st in ju stic e .” Id . at 7 1 8 . C e rta in ly , in vi ew of W oods i de i f the pane l i n t he or i gi nal Par di ni appea l had i nt ended t o aw ar d at t or ney ’ s fee s the dec i s i on w oul d have be en cl ear l yerr oneous i n l i ghtof I O P 9. 1 and w e w oul d notbe requi red t o fo l l ow i t
. In anyeven t , there i s atthe v eryl east “s ubs t ant i al doubt ” thatthe or i gi nal Par di ni panel deci ded the at t or ney ’ s fee s i s s ue and thus w e ar e notfor ecl os ed fr om deci di ng i t
. See U ni t ed A r t i s t s T heatr e C i r cui t , I nc. v. T w p. of W a rrin g to n , 3 1 6 F .3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). (“ W h e re th e re is13 s ubs t ant i al doubtas t o w hethera pr i orpanel actual l ydeci ded an i s s ue, t he l at erpanel s houl d notbe for ecl os ed fr om cons i der i ng the issu e.”). D
. W hethert he Par di ni s M ayR ecove rC os t s for Ser vi ces O t herT han C onduct i ve Educat i on O ne fi nal m at t err emai ns . T he Par di ni s ar gue thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n notal l ow i ng them t o r ecove rcos t s that t heypai d fors ervi ces forG eor gi a Par di ni ot herthan the cos t s for conduct i ve educ at i on. A ccor di ng t o t he Par di ni s , ours t at ement i n o ur ear l i er deci si on t hat “the P ardi nis are ent i t l ed to the co st of the conduc t i ve educ at i on thattheypur chas ed, ” Par di ni , 420 F
. 3d at19 2, did not l i m i tthe recov eryof co st s t o o nlytho se i ncurr ed forconduct i ve educ at i on, and theyther efor e ar e ent i t l ed to re c o v e r th e c o sts f

o r o th e r typ e s o f

se rv ice s a s w e ll. T he Par di ni s , how ever , have noti dent i fi ed anypartof the r ecor d s how i ng t hatt heys oughtt o r ecove rcos t s fors ervi ces ot hert han conduc t i ve educ at i on orthatthe D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed a n ya p p lic a tio n f

o r s u c h c o s ts . S e e a p p e lla n ts ’ b r. a t 2 5 -2 7
. Ind ee d , there is no thing in either the m ag istrate jud g e’s m em o ran d u m d ated A u g u st 18 , 2 0 0 6 , o r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rd e r d a ted Ja n u a ry1 2 , 2 0 0 7 , co n c e rn in g th e re c o v e ryo f c o sts fors ervi ces forG eor gi a otherthan thos e forconduct i ve educa t i on. W e ther efor e fi nd no bas i s foraddr es s i ng w hether th e P a rd in is a re e n tit led to re c o v e r c o sts f o r se rv ice s f

o r G e o rg ia ot hert han the cos t s forconduct i ve educ at i on.

I V. CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s t r i ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in h o lding that the P ard inis are notent i t l ed t o at t or ney ’ s fee s . W e ther efor e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derof J anuary12, 2007. N o cos t s s hal l be a llo w e d o n th is a p p e a l.