FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT May 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit Court * of Appe als, sitting by

desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 07- 1413 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 05-02456 -CV -JTC -1 ROB ER T K . and KA REN K ., on behalf of T .K ., a m inor, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us COBB C OUNTY SCHOOL DISTRIC T, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ay 2 8, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BL A CK and F A RR IS , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * PE R CU RIA M:2

T. K. , a m inor, and his parents, Robert K . and Kare n K. , a ppeal the district co urt’ s or de r gr an tin g sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of Co bb C ounty

S ch ool District, in their action for attorney s’ fee s under the Indivi duals with Disabilities E du c a t i o nA c t , 2 0 U . S . C . § 1 4 1 5 ( i ) ( 3 ) ( B ) . We a f f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND T . K . is anauti sti c stu de nt who o bta ins spe ci al e duc at ionse rv ic es f ro m Co bb CountySchool District pursuant to the IDE A. O n March 17, 2004, the parties ag re ed to anam en de d se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t sp ec if y ing that C obb Co unty

w oul d provide for a functional behavior analy sis of T. K. at the Mar cus Center B ehavioral Cl ini c. I n S ep te m

be r 2004 , Co bb C ounty

de te rm ine d th at

T . K . sho uld

r et ur n to a pla ce m en t at a

loc al hig h sc hool on D ec em be r 1, 200 4. P la int if

fs dis ag re ed

and requested an ID EAdue process hearing. T hey alleged that: (1) T .K .’ s functional be havio r an al y sis w as inc om ple te and h is p re m at

ur e re m ova l w oul d vi olate the se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t and the I D E A ; ( 2) Co bb C ounty ’ s pr opos ed pla ce m en t and indiv idualized education p lan wer e inappropriate; and (3) T .K . should rem ain at the Marc us C en te r dur ing the dis put e unde r the I D E A ’ s “ stay -p ut” pr ovi sio n, 20 U . S. C. § 14 15(

j ). B ef or e the he ar ing , pla int if

fs am en de d th ei r he ar ing r eque st t o drop all but th eir brea ch of settlem ent claim and their request for stay -put relief. A ft er ahe ar ing , an a dm ini str at ive lawj udge w iththe G eo rg iaO ff ic e of3

St at e Adm in is tra ti ve Heari ng s g ran te d re li ef fo r pl ai nt iff s o n t he set tl em en t cl ai m . InaMarc h 29 , 200 5 de ci sio n, the A L J he ld tha t C obb Co unty ha d vi olate d th e ag re em en t by

a tte m pti ng t o r em ove T . K . f

ro m the Marc us C en te r be fo re the an al y sis w as f

ini she d. O n S ep te m

be r 19, 200 5, pla int if

fs ini tiate d th ei r ac tio n f

or attorney s’ fee s pursuant to 20 U. S. C. § 141 5(i)(3)( B). T he district court granted Co bb Co un ty’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Pl ai nt iff s t im el y ap pe al ed . II . JURISDIC TION W e ad dr es s C obb Co unty ’ s j ur isd ic tio na l arg um en ts f ir st. C obb Co unty asserts that the district court lacked j urisdictio n to hear plaintiffs’ attorney s’ fee s cl ai m on the gr ound

that the A L J’ s M ar ch29, 200 5 de ci sio n w as voi d ab i nit io . W e re j ect this argum ent. 20 U .S .C. § 1415 (i)(3)( A) confers j urisdictio n over ID E Aa ct ion s to dis tr ic t c ourts, and § 141 5( i) (3 )( B) (i )( I) c re at es ac au se of a ct ion fo r pa ren ts to reco ve r at to rn ey s’ fees . See 20 U . S. C. § 14 15( i) (3 )( B) (i )( I) ( “ Inany action or proceeding broug ht und er this section, the court, in its dis cretion, m ay aw ar d r ea sona

ble a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s a s part

of the c ost s . . . to a pr ev ai lin g party w ho is the pare nt o f a ch ild

w ithadis ab ili ty . ”) . Aque sti on c onc er nin g th e va lid ity

of the AL J proceeding goes to the m erits of plaintiffs’ attorney s’ fee s claim but do es no t d efea t t he di st ric t co ur t’s p owe r to ad jud ic at e th e cl ai m . See Steel Co. v. Citizens for

a Be tter Env’ t , 523 U. S. 83, 89 (1998) (“ [T ] he absence of a valid (as4

oppo sed to arguable) cause of a ction do es not im plicate subjec t-m atter juri sd ic ti on , i.e. , the c ourts’ statut or y or c onst itutio na l power

to ad j udi cate the cas e.”) (e m

ph as is in ori gi na l). Co bb C ounty ’ s c ont en tio n th at the re w as no f

ed er al que sti on j ur isd ic tio n ove r pla int if

fs ’ c la im a lso f ai ls. P la int if

fs ’ c om pla int state d ac la im

und er 20 U . S. C. § 14 15( i) (3 )( B) . T ha t i s su ff ic ie nt t o ve st the dis tr ic t c ourt w ithj ur isd ic tio n un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 33 1. See New ton v. Capital Assuran ce Co. , I nc. , 245 F . 3d 1306 , 130 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 1) ( “ U nde r [2 8 U . S. C. § 13 31] , f ed er al c ourts h av e fe de ra l- que sti on j ur isd ic tio n ov er sui ts i n whic h aw el l- ple ad ed c om pla int es ta bli she s . . . that f

ed er al lawc re at es the c au se of a ct ion. . . . ”) ( int er

na l c itatio n om itt ed ). W e have j ur isd ic tio n ov er thi s a ppe al pur suant t o 28 U . S. C. § 12 91. III . STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W

“ W e re vie wagr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t de nov o, vie w ing e vid en ce in the lightm ost favorable to the non m ovin g party .” Ch am bless v . L oui sia na-P ac ifi c Co rp. , 48 1 F .3d13 45 , 13 49 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). A prev ai li ng pa rty in a n IDEA ad m in is tra ti ve act io n m ay reco ve r at to rn ey s’ fees . See 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i )( 3) (B )( i) (I ); M

itten v . M usc oge e Co unt

y Sc hool D ist . , 877 F . 2d 9 32, 935 (11th Cir. 1989). W e re view the district court’ s denial of attorney s’ fee s for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. In re A pplicat ion to Adjudge Trinity Indus., I nc. , 876 F . 2d5

1485 , 149 6 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) . “ Whe the r the f ac ts a s f ound suf fi ce to re nde r the pla int if f a ‘ pr ev ai lin g party ’ is a le ga l qu es tio n r ev ie w ed de novo .” Ch urc h of Scientolo gy Flag Serv. , O rg., Inc. v. City of Clearwater , 2 F . 3d 1 509, 151 3 ( 11th Cir. 1993 ) (quotation m arks in original).

IV. PREVAIL ING PARTY STATUS Pl ai nti ff s c ont en d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in fi ndi ng tha t the y

w er e not the pr ev ai lin g party

in the A L J de ci sio n of

Marc h 29 , 200 5 . “ [O ] nly aparty w ho obt ai ns a j udgm en t onthe m er its or asimilar co urt- or de re d c hange in the part ie s’ l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , s u c h a s ac o n s e n td e c r e e , may b e c o n s i d e r e da‘p r e v a i l i n g p arty’ for purposes of a fee aw ard. ” Logge rhe ad T urt le v . Co unt

y Co unc il , 307 F . 3d 1318 , 132 3- 24 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( ci tin g Bu c k h a n n o n Bd. & C

a r e Ho m e, I

n c . v . W. V a. D ep ’t of H ea lth & H um an R es . , 532 U. S. 598, 603-04 (20 01)). Ass um in g, argu en do , that the A L J’ s M ar ch29, 200 5 de ci sio n w as ac ourtor de re d c hange in the part ie s’ le ga l r el at ion shi p, pla int if fs ’ a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s c la im sti ll fa ils . P la int if

fs ’ am en de d c om

pla int to the A L J r eque ste d e nf or ce m en t of

the settlem ent agreem ent and a stay -put order under 20 U. S. C. § 141 5(j ). H owever , pl ai nt iff s d idno t o bt ai n re li ef o n acla im bro ug htun de r th e IDEA; 2 0 U.S.C. § 1415 (i )( 3) (B ) cannot

pr ovi de aba sis f

or aw ar din g atto rn ey s’ f

ee s. Se ct ion141 5( i) (3 )( B) pe rm its the r ec ove ry of a tto rn ey s’ f

ee s by the6

pr ev ai lin g party

“ in any a ct ionor pr oc ee din g br ough t un de r thi s se ct ion ” of the ID E A . G en er al ly , an a ct ionm ay be br ough t un de r the I D E A“ w ithr es pe ct to any m atte r re latin g to the ide nti fi catio n, e va luatio n, or e duc at ion al pla ce m en t of the ch ild , or the pr ovi sio n of

af re e ap pr opr iate pub lic e duc at ionto suc h c hil d. ” 20 U . S. C. § 14 15( b) (6 )( A ). I n M . T. V . v . D eK alb Co unt y Sc h. D ist . , 446 F . 3d 1 153, 1158 -59 (11th Cir. 2006), w e interpreted § 1415(b)(6)(A ) broadly to includ e a re ta liatio n c la im

br ough t by

pare nts w ho a sse rt ed

the ir c hil d’ s r igh ts unde r the ID E A . D es pit e the br ea dthof § 14 15( b) (6 )( A ), pla int if fs did not pr ev ai l ona cl ai m “br ou gh t u nd er” § 14 15 of t he IDEA. See 20 U. S. C. § 141 5(i)(3)( B). Pl ai nti ff s pr ev ai le d on ly

on a state -l awbr ea chof

c ontra ct c la im that by the ir ow n a dm iss iondid

not inv olv e the I D E A . U nli ke the I D E Ar et al iatio n c la im in M.T.V. , pla int if

fs ’ br ea chof

se ttl em en t a gr ee m en t c la im did not r equir e any ad j udi catio n of

pla int if fs ’ r igh ts unde r the I D E Aor any c onsi de ratio n of

the te xt o f th e IDEA. Se e M.T.V. , 44 6 F .3dat 1 15 8. To be bro ug htun de r § 1 41 5( b) (6 )(A), a co m pla int m ust state avio latio n of

an I D E Ar igh t r eg ar din g “ the ide nti fi catio n, evaluation, or educational placem ent of the child, or the provision o f a [ FA PE ] .” 20 U.S.C. § 1 41 5( b) (6 )(A). Pl ai nt iff s’ com pl ai ntdo es no t s ta te su ch a vi ol at io n. Further, plaintiffs requested onlystay -put relief, which genera lly will not supp ort an att orne y s’ fees awardbe cau se itis no t m eri ts -b as ed . Se e J. O . v . O range Tw p.We may aff irm on any

g round supported by

the re cord. Se eBi rc oll

v . M iam i- 1 Da deCou nty , 480 F.3d 1072, 1088 n.21 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 7 Bd. of Educ. , 287 F . 3d 2 67, 273 -7 4 ( 3d C ir . 200 2) ; Bd. of Educ. of Oak Park v. Na th an R. , 199 F . 3d 3 77, 382 ( 7thCi r. 200 0) . I n c ontra st, the pla int if fs in M.T.V. pu rs ue d am eri ts -b as edIDEA reta li at io n c la im . Se e M.T.V. , 446 F . 3d at 11 58. O ur de te rm inatio n f

ind s su ppor t i n 42 U . S. C. § 19 88 c as es that ho ld tha t a pla int if f w ho l ose s onthe m er its of his f ed er al c ivi l r igh ts c la im

is not a

“prevailing party ” for purposes of an aw ard of attorney s’ fee s, even if he prevailed on a rel at edpe nd en t s ta te law cl ai m . Se e, e . g. , F inc h v . Ci tyof V

ernon , 877 F . 2d 14 97 , 15 07 -0 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . T he re w as no e rr or

in the gr an t of

sum m ar y j udgm en t f

or Co bb C ounty

on p l a i n t i f f s ’ a t t o rn e ys ’ f

e e s c l a i m. 1 AF FIRMED .