### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

E L P A S O I N D E P E N D E N T S C H O O L D I S T R I C T

T h i r d P a r t y P l a i n t i f

f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.

M A R K B E R R Y

T h i r d P a r t y D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e W e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s

U S D C N o

. 3 : 0 8

- C V

- 7 6

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M

, S M I T H

, a n d H A Y N E S

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

P E R C U R I A M : *

A t t o r n e y M a r k B e r r y ( “ B e r r y ” ) a p p e a l s a n a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a g a i n s t

h i m r e s u l t i n g f

r o m l i t i g a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e E l P a s o I n d e p e n d e n t S c h o o l D i s t r i c t

( “ t h e D i s t r i c t ” ) u n d e r t h e I n d i v i d u a l s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s E d u c a t i o n A c t ( “ I D E A ” )

,

2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 0 0

. W e A F F I R M

. 1 U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t



### F I L E D

Novembe r 8, 2 010

Lyle W . Cayce

Clerk

Pur sua nt to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the court has det erm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not *

be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4.

The IDEA pr ovide s fed eral mo ney to st ates to ass ist them in pr ovidi ng a “f ree 1

app rop riat e p ublic ed ucat ion” ( “FAPE”) t o c hild ren wi th dis abilit ies

. 20 U. S. C. § 1 400( c)

. Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

I

. F a c t s a n d P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y

T h i s i s t h e s e c o n d a p p e a l a r i s i n g f r o m l i t i g a t i o n b e t w e e n M

. L

. , a s m o t h e r

a n d n e x t f

r i e n d o f A

. L

. , a m i n o r c h i l d e n r o l l e d a s a s t u d e n t i n t h e D i s t r i c t

, a n d

t h e D i s t r i c t

. W e p r e v i o u s l y a f f i r m e d b o t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f M

. L

. ’ s

I D E A c o m p l a i n t a n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e D i s t r i c t t o r e e v a l u a t e

A

. L

. w i t h o u t M

. L

. ’ s c o n s e n t

. M

. L

. e x r e l

. A

. L

. v

. E l P a s o I n d e p

. S c h

. D i s t

. , 3 6 9

F

. A p p ’ x 5 7 3 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 0 ) ( u n p u b l i s h e d )

. H e r e

, w e c o n s i d e r o n l y w h e t h e r t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t t o t h e D i s t r i c t o n i t s t h i r d

p a r t y c o m p l a i n t r e q u e s t i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s f r o m B e r r y

. W e t h e r e f o r e g i v e a b r i e f

s y n o p s i s o f t h e f a c t s a n d p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y a s t h e y r e l a t e t o o u r r e v i e w o f t h e

a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e a w a r d

.

I n 2 0 0 5 a n d 2 0 0 6

, t w o s e p a r a t e A d m i s s i o n s

, R e v i e w

, a n d D i s m i s s a l

( “ A R D ” ) C o m m i t t e e s i d e n t i f i e d A

. L

. a s a s t u d e n t r e q u i r i n g s p e e c h t h e r a p y

s e r v i c e s u n d e r t h e I D E A

. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t A

. L

. m i s s e d s o m e w e e k l y 2

s e s s i o n s d u r i n g t h e 2 0 0 6

- 0 7 s c h o o l y e a r d u e t o a s h o r t a g e o f s p e e c h t h e r a p i s t s

i n t h e D i s t r i c t

. T h e D i s t r i c t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h i s i s s u e i n a l e t t e r t o M

. L

. a n d

o f f e r e d s e r v i c e s t o c o m p e n s a t e f o r m i s s e d t i m e

. H o w e v e r

, o n O c t o b e r 5

, 2 0 0 7

, a n

A R D C o m m i t t e e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t A

. L

. n o l o n g e r q u a l i f i e d f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n

s e r v i c e s f

o r s p e e c h i m p a i r m e n t

. M

. L

. d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h i s f i n d i n g a n d r e q u e s t e d

a r e e v a l u a t i o n o f A

. L

. T h e C o m m i t t e e a g r e e d t o M

. L

. ’ s r e q u e s t a n d d e c i d e d t o

r e c o n v e n e o n O c t o b e r 2 2

, 2 0 0 7 t o r e v i e w t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r e e v a l u a t i o n

.

M

. L

. s u b s e q u e n t l y r e t a i n e d B e r r y a n d

, o n O c t o b e r 1 0

, 2 0 0 7

, f i l e d a d u e

p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e T e x a s E d u c a t i o n A g e n c y ( “ T E A ” ) r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e

U nder t he IDEA, a dis abled s tud ent is ent itle d to re ceive a FA PE that is t ailor ed to 2

the st uden t’s par tic ular n e e d s by me ans of an “ind ividua l educ atio nal pr ogram ” (“ IEP”), a

wr itt en st atem ent pr epa red at a me eti ng att ende d by a qualif ied rep res enta tive of the sc hool

dis tri ct, a teac her, the child ’s par ents or guard ians

, and wh en app rop riat e, the child

. Cypr ess

Fai rba nks Indep. Sch. Di st. v. Mi cha el F.

, 118 F.3d 245, 247 ( 5 t h C i r. 1997)

. In Texas

, the

indi vidual s char ged wi th pr epa ring an IEP are kn ow n coll ect ively as an ARD Com mi tte e. Id.

2 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

D i s t r i c t : ( 1 ) c o n t i n u e p r o v i d i n g s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n s e r v i c e s f o r A

. L

. ; ( 2 ) p r o v i d e

c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s f o r m i s s e d s e s s i o n s ; ( 3 ) c o n d u c t a n a d d i t i o n a l A R D

C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g t o d e v e l o p g o a l s f o r A

. L

. ’ s c o m p e n s a t o r y s p e e c h t h e r a p y ; a n d

( 4 ) p a y M

. L

. ’ s a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

.

M e a n w h i l e

, t h e A R D C o m m i t t e e r e c o n v e n e d o n N o v e m b e r 1

, 2 0 0 7 a f t e r

h o n o r i n g B e r r y ’ s r e q u e s t t o p o s t p o n e t h e O c t o b e r 2 2 n d m e e t i n g

. N e i t h e r M

. L

.

n o r B e r r y a t t e n d e d t h e N o v e m b e r 1 s t m e e t i n g

, e v e n t h o u g h B e r r y w a s t o l d t h e

m e e t i n g w o u l d t a k e p l a c e r e g a r d l e s s o f s e t t l e m e n t n e g o t i a t i o n s

. A t t h a t

m e e t i n g

, t h e A R D C o m m i t t e e a g a i n c o n c l u d e d t h a t A

. L

. n o l o n g e r m e t e l i g i b i l i t y

c r i t e r i a f

o r s p e e c h t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s

. H o w e v e r

, b e c a u s e o f t h e p e n d i n g d u e

p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t

, t h e C o m m i t t e e r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t A

. L

. r e m a i n i n s p e e c h

t h e r a p y p u r s u a n t t o t h e I D E A ’ s “ s t a y p u t ” p r o v i s i o n s a n d t h a t

, s u b j e c t t o 3

p a r e n t a l c o n s e n t

, h e u n d e r g o a n o t h e r f u l l

, i n d i v i d u a l e v a l u a t i o n ( “ F I E ” ) t o

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r h e s u f f e r e d f r o m a n y o t h e r d i s a b i l i t i e s

. 4

T h e D i s t r i c t s e n t B e r r y a c o p y o f t h e A R D C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g r e p o r t a n d

a p a r e n t a l c o n s e n t f

o r m f o r t h e F I E

. T h e D i s t r i c t a l s o m a d e a s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r

o f o n e h o u r o f c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s f o r e a c h h o u r A

. L

. m i s s e d b e g i n n i n g i n

2 0 0 5 a n d a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

. M

. L

. a n d h e r c o u n s e l d i d n o t r e s p o n d t o t h i s o f f e r

, a n d

M

. L

. r e f

u s e d t o c o n s e n t t o t h e a d d i t i o n a l F I E f o r A

. L

.

A f t e r t h e f

i l i n g o f t h e d u e p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t

, t h e D i s t r i c t m a d e s e v e r a l

a d d i t i o n a l s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r s t o M

. L

. T w o o f t h e s e o f f e r s

, s e n t i n N o v e m b e r o f

The “s tay put ” pr ovis ions of the IDEA pr ovide that “d uring the pend ency of any 3

pr oce edi ngs con duc ted purs uant to this sect ion, unless the Stat e or loca l educ atio nal agency

and the par ents oth e r w ise agree

, the child sha ll rem ain in the then -c urr ent educ atio nal

plac em ent of the child

. . . . ” 20 U. S. C. § 1 415( j).

The IDEA has a com pr ehens ive sc hem e to evaluat e each st uden t in ord er to me et the 4

educ atio nal goals of the IDEA, inclu ding reevaluat ion of the st uden t aft er a des ignate d tim e

per iod or as need ed. 20 U. S. C. § 1414. Ho we ver, a par ent and the loca l e duc atio nal agency

mus t agree to cond uct a re evaluat ion of a c hild mor e fre quent ly than once a y ear. 20 U.S .C.

§ 1 414( a)( 2)( B)( i).

3 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

2 0 0 7

, a g a i n p r o v i d e d f o r o n e h o u r o f c o m p e n s a t o r y s p e e c h t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s f o r

e a c h h o u r m i s s e d

, a s w e l l a s B e r r y ’ s r e q u e s t e d a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

. T h e o f f e r s a l s o

s t a t e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t w o u l d p r o v i d e A

. L

. w i t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t s p e e c h a n d

l a n g u a g e e v a l u a t i o n

, a n d a l e t t e r a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e o f f e r s s t a t e d t h a t t h e

n u m b e r o f h o u r s o f c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s w a s o p e n f o r d i s c u s s i o n

. E v e n t h o u g h

t h e s e o f f e r s p r o v i d e d a l l r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f

, M

. L

. a n d B e r r y d i d n o t a c c e p t t h e m

.

T h e r e a f t e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t m o v e d t o d i s m i s s M

. L

. ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t a s

m o o t b e c a u s e i t h a d o f f e r e d A

. L

. a l l r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f

. T h e D i s t r i c t a l s o f i l e d a

c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g t o r e e v a l u a t e A

. L

. w i t h o u t h i s m o t h e r ’ s c o n s e n t

. O n

D e c e m b e r 7

, 2 0 0 7

, t h e T E A

- a s s i g n e d S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n H e a r i n g O f f i c e r

( “ S E H O ” ) g r a n t e d t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a f t e r f i n d i n g M

. L

. ’ s c l a i m s

m o o t b e c a u s e t h e D i s t r i c t h a d o f f e r e d a l l r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f a n d t h e D i s t r i c t w a s

i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c o r r e c t i n g t h e p r o b l e m s M

. L

. r a i s e d b e f o r e M

. L

. f

i l e d t h e d u e

p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t

. A f t e r a h e a r i n g o n t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i m

, t h e S E H O

r u l e d a g a i n s t t h e D i s t r i c t

, f i n d i n g t h a t t h e I D E A p r o h i b i t e d A

. L

. ’ s r e e v a l u a t i o n

b e c a u s e t h e D i s t r i c t h a d a l r e a d y e v a l u a t e d h i m o n c e t h a t y e a r a n d M

. L

. r e f u s e d

t o c o n s e n t t o a n a d d i t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n

.

A g g r i e v e d b y t h e d i s m i s s a l o f t h e d u e p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t

, M

. L

. f i l e d a n

o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t i n f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e e k i n g r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a s e

, a n o r d e r t h a t A

. L

. r e c e i v e a h e a r i n g

, a n d a t t o r n e y ’ s f e e s

.

T h e D i s t r i c t t h e n f

i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m s e e k i n g r e v i e w o f t h e S E H O ’ s d e c i s i o n

r e f u s i n g t o o v e r r i d e M

. L

. ’ s c o n s e n t a n d a t h i r d

- p a r t y c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t B e r r y f o r

a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a s a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” u n d e r t h e I D E A

. I n i t s t h i r d

- p a r t y

c o m p l a i n t

, t h e D i s t r i c t a l l e g e d t h a t B e r r y f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t o r s u b s e q u e n t c a u s e

o f a c t i o n t h a t w a s f

r i v o l o u s

, u n r e a s o n a b l e

, o r w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n a n d t h a t B e r r y

c o n t i n u e d t o l i t i g a t e a f t e r t h e l i t i g a t i o n c l e a r l y b e c a m e f r i v o l o u s

, u n r e a s o n a b l e

,

o r w i t h o u t f

o u n d a t i o n

. S e e 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 5 ( i ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i ) ( I I )

. T h e D i s t r i c t a l s o

a l l e g e d t h a t B e r r y p r e s e n t e d t h e c o m p l a i n t o r s u b s e q u e n t c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r a n

4 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

i m p r o p e r p u r p o s e

, i n c l u d i n g t o h a r a s s

, c a u s e u n n e c e s s a r y d e l a y

, o r n e e d l e s s l y

i n c r e a s e t h e c o s t o f l i t i g a t i o n

. S e e 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 5 ( i ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i ) ( I I I )

.

I n A p r i l 2 0 0 9

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t o n i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m a n d d e n i e d M

. L

. ’ s m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

s e e k i n g t o r e i n s t a t e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c a s e ( “ A p r i l 2 0 0 9 O r d e r ” )

. M

. L

. e x r e l

.

A

. L

. v

. E l P a s o I

n d e p

. S c h

. D i s t

. , 6 1 0 F

. S u p p

. 2 d 5 8 2 ( W

. D

. T e x

. 2 0 0 9 )

. T h e

c o u r t f o u n d i t u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e A R D C o m m i t t e e d e t e r m i n e d f i r s t o n O c t o b e r

5 a n d t h e n a g a i n o n N o v e m b e r 1

, 2 0 0 7 t h a t A

. L

. n o l o n g e r h a d a s p e e c h

i m p e d i m e n t a n d t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t r e q u i r e s p e e c h t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s

. M

. L

. d i d n o t

d i s p u t e t h e s e f

i n d i n g s i n e i t h e r t h e d u e p r o c e s s o r j u d i c i a l c o m p l a i n t s

. T h u s

, t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s e d M

. L

. ’ s c l a i m s f o r c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s a s m o o t b e c a u s e

A

. L

. n o l o n g e r h a d a d i s a b i l i t y r e q u i r i n g s p e e c h t h e r a p y

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a l s o

r u l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s f a v o r o n i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m

, e f f e c t i v e l y o v e r r i d i n g t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t o b t a i n M

. L

. ’ s c o n s e n t f o r A

. L

. ’ s r e e v a l u a t i o n

. I n

a n u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n

, w e a f f i r m e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g s o n b o t h i s s u e s

. 5

M

. L

. e x

. r e l

. A

. L

. , 3 6 9 F

. A p p ’ x a t 5 7 6 n

. 4

.

F o l l o w i n g t h e A p r i l 2 0 0 9 O r d e r

, t h e D i s t r i c t f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y

j u d g m e n t o n i t s t h i r d

- p a r t y c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s f r o m B e r r y

. I n

a w a r d i n g f e e s t o t h e D i s t r i c t

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i r s t n o t e d t h a t B e r r y d i d n o t

d i s p u t e t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t w a s t h e “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” a n d t h a t t h e A p r i l 2 0 0 9

O r d e r w a s a n e n f

o r c e a b l e j u d g m e n t t h a t c a u s e d a m a t e r i a l a l t e r a t i o n i n t h e

p a r t i e s ’ r e l a t i o n s h i p

. I n a n a l y z i n g w h e t h e r B e r r y c o n t i n u e d t o l i t i g a t e

i m p r o p e r l y

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t m a d e s e v e r a l f i n d i n g s a s t o B e r r y ’ s b e h a v i o r b a s e d

u p o n t h e u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s p r e s e n t e d

. F i r s t

, B e r r y n e v e r c o n t e s t e d t h e A R D

C o m m i t t e e ’ s d e c i s i o n s i n 2 0 0 7 t h a t A

. L

. w a s n o l o n g e r e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e

c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s a n d

, t h e r e f o r e

, t h o s e c l a i m s w e r e m o o t

. B e r r y a l s o

As to M. L.’ s clai ms

, we fou nd that a requ es t for “co mp ens ator y” sp eec h ther apy for a 5

non- exis tent d isa bilit y d id not pr es ent a “ live” c ase or c ontr overs y. 369 F. Ap p’x at 576 n.4.

5 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

r e j e c t e d t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r s o f f u l l r e l i e f d e s p i t e t h e a r g u a b l y m o o t

c l a i m s

. F i n a l l y

, B e r r y s t o n e w a l l e d a t t e m p t s t o r e s o l v e a n y d i s p u t e w i t h t h e

D i s t r i c t b y r e f

u s i n g t o a l l o w a r e e v a l u a t i o n o f A

. L

. , b y n o t p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e

A R D C o m m i t t e e p r o c e s s

, a n d b y r e f u s i n g t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s e f f o r t s t o p r o v i d e A

. L

.

w i t h a F A P E

. T h u s

, t h e c o u r t f o u n d i t h a d d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

t o t h e D i s t r i c t b e c a u s e B e r r y c o n t i n u e d t o l i t i g a t e a c l a i m t h a t h a d c l e a r l y

b e c o m e f

r i v o l o u s

, u n r e a s o n a b l e

, a n d w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n

. A l t h o u g h t h e D i s t r i c t

s o u g h t o v e r $ 8 0

, 0 0 0 i n f e e s

, t h e c o u r t a w a r d e d o n l y $ 1 0

, 0 0 0 a f t e r c o n c l u d i n g

t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s o w n f a i l u r e s i n p r o v i d i n g s p e e c h t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s t o A

. L

.

c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e i n i t i a l d i s p u t e a n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t s h o u l d n o t

r e c o v e r f

o r w o r k d o n e o n i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m

. B e r r y t i m e l y a p p e a l e d

. 6

I I

. S t a n d a r d o f R e v i e w

W e r e v i e w a g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t d e n o v o

, a p p l y i n g t h e s a m e l e g a l

s t a n d a r d a s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. S e p t i m u s v

. U n i v

. o f H o u s

. , 3 9 9 F

. 3 d 6 0 1

, 6 0 9

( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 )

. S u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r i f t h e p l e a d i n g s

, t h e d i s c o v e r y a n d

d i s c l o s u r e m a t e r i a l s o n f i l e

, a n d a n y a f

f i d a v i t s s h o w t h a t t h e r e i s n o g e n u i n e

i s s u e a s t o a n y m a t e r i a l f a c t a n d t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t

a s a m a t t e r o f

l a w

. F E D

. R

. C I V

. P

. 5 6 ( c )

. W e v i e w s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e

i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v a n t

, w i t h a l l f a c t u a l i n f e r e n c e s d r a w n

i n t h e n o n m o v a n t ’ s f a v o r

. C h i u v

. P l a n o I n d e p

. S c h

. D i s t

. , 3 3 9 F

. 3 d 2 7 3

, 2 7 9 ( 5 t h

C i r

. 2 0 0 3 )

. W e m a y “ a f f i r m a g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n a n y g r o u n d s

s u p p o r t e d b y t h e r e c o r d a n d p r e s e n t e d t o t h e [ d i s t r i c t ] c o u r t

. ” H e r n a n d e z v

.

V e l a s q u e z

, 5 2 2 F

. 3 d 5 5 6

, 5 6 0 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 8 )

.

In rela tio n to the Di st ric t’s count erc laim

, the dis tri ct cour t conc lude d that it wa s 6

uncle a r w h e t h er the IDEA fee -s hift ing pr ovis ions cont em plat ed an att orne ys’ fee aw ard for

count erc laim s. Becaus e the dis tri ct cour t did not bas e the award on the counter clai m, we do

not reac h this iss ue. We als o ass ume wi thou t dec idi ng that Berr y’s com plai nt wa s an “ac tio n

or pr oce edi ng” unde r § 1415, as Berr y wa ived any argum ent to the cont rar y by fai ling to rais e

the iss ue until his rep ly brie f. Yohe y v. Coll ins

, 985 F.2d 22 2

, 2 2 5 ( 5 t h Cir. 1993) (“ As a

genera l r ule, t his Cou rt doe s not revie w iss ues r ais ed for t he fir st t im e o n ap pea l.” ).

6 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

T h e I D E A p r o v i d e s a c o u r t w i t h d i s c r e t i o n t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s t o a

“ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y

. ” 2 0 U

. S

. C

. § 1 4 1 5 ( i ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i ) ( I I )

. W h e t h e r a p a r t y q u a l i f i e s a s

a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” i s “ a l e g a l q u e s t i o n s u b j e c t t o d e n o v o r e v i e w

. ” B a i l e y v

.

M i s s i s s i p p i

, 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 6 8 4

, 6 8 7 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 )

. E v e n i f t h e s t a n d a r d s f o r

a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a r e m e t

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s v e s t e d w i t h d i s c r e t i o n a s

t o w h e t h e r o r n o t t o a w a r d t h e m

. E l P a s o I n d e p

. S c h

. D i s t v

. R i c h a r d R

. , 5 9 1

F

. 3 d 4 1 7

, 4 2 5 n

. 9 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 9 )

, c e r t

. d e n i e d

, 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 3 4 6 7 ( 2 0 1 0 )

.

I I I

. D i s c u s s i o n

A

. O u r J u r i s d i c t i o n T o H e a r t h e A t t o r n e y s ’ F e e C l a i m

A s a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t w e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r

t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e c l a i m

, a s t h e I D E A a u t h o r i z e s a n a c t i o n s o l e l y t o

r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. R i c h a r d R

. , 5 9 1 F

. 3 d a t 4 2 2 n

. 4 ; P

. N

. v

. S e a t t l e S c h

. 7

D i s t

. , 4 7 4 F

. 3 d 1 1 6 5

, 1 1 6 9

S 7 0

, 1 1 7 4 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( s a m e )

. A n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t

m a y c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a p a r t y i s a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” f o r p u r p o s e s o f a n

a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e a w a r d e v e n i f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m i s d i s m i s s e d a s m o o t p r i o r t o

a f i n a l d e c i s i o n o n t h e m e r i t s

. C o m p a r e B u c k h a n n o n B d

. & C a r e H o m e

, I n c

. v

.

W

. V a

. D e p ’ t o f H e a l t h & H u m a n R e s

. , 5 3 2 U

. S

. 5 9 8

, 6 0 3

S 0 5 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( d e t e r m i n i n g

w h e t h e r o n e p a r t y w a s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a s a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” e v e n

t h o u g h t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e w a s m o o t e d b y l e g i s l a t i o n e l i m i n a t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s

a t i s s u e )

, a n d D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a v

. S t r a u s

, 5 9 0 F

. 3 d 8 9 8

, 9 0 0

S 0 2 ( D

. C

. C i r

.

2 0 1 0 ) ( c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t w a s a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” u n d e r t h e

I D E A a f

t e r a h e a r i n g o f

f i c e r d i s m i s s e d t h e u n d e r l y i n g c a s e a s m o o t )

, w i t h L e w i s

We note that othe r fee -s hift ing pr ovis ions

, suc h as 42 U. S. C. § 1988, do not allow sui ts 7

so lely for att orne ys’ fee s incur red in non- judic ial pr oce edi ngs. Citiz ens for a Better Env’ t v. The

Steel Co.

, 230 F.3d 923, 928 (7t h Cir. 2000) ; W. G. v. Sena tore

, 18 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1994)

(no ting that fee -s hift ing pr ovis ions canno t them se lves conf er sub ject mat ter juris dic tio n, but

mus t ins tead be read in conjunc tio n wi th sub st antive st atut es to es tabl ish pr ope r juris dic tio n

over fee app lica tio ns)

. Thus, a l ack of sub ject mat ter juris dic tio n over the unde rlying

sub st antive clai m bars a cour t’s juris dic tio n over the acc om panyin g § 1988 clai m for att orne ys’

fee s. He re, how ever, both the SEH O and the dis tri ct cour t had sub ject mat ter juris dic tio n over

the clai m at the outs et.

7 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

v

. C o n t ’ l B a n k C o r

p

. , 4 9 4 U

. S

. 4 7 2

, 4 8 0 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a n i n t e r e s t i n

a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e a n A r t i c l e I I I c a s e o r c o n t r o v e r s y w h e r e

n o n e e x i s t e d o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m )

, a n d B o a r d o f E d u c

. v

.

N a t h a n R

. , 1 9 9 F

. 3 d 3 7 7

, 3 8 1

S 8 2 ( 7 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( r e f u s i n g t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r

p a r e n t s q u a l i f

i e d a s “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t i e s ” o n c e r t a i n m o o t c l a i m s b e c a u s e t h e

c o u r t h a d n o j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e m e r i t s o f t h o s e u n d e r l y i n g c l a i m s )

.

H e r e

, M

. L

. ’ s c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e D i s t r i c t w e r e n o t m o o t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e

f i l i n g o f t h e d u e p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t o r t h e a p p e a l t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

, b e c a u s e

t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e t h e o r i g i n a l l y

r e q u i r e d h o u r s o f c o m p e n s a t o r y s p e e c h t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s

. T h i s d i s p u t e b e c a m e 8

m o o t o n l y a f

t e r B e r r y f

a i l e d t o c o n t e s t t h e A R D C o m m i t t e e ’ s f i n d i n g s a n d t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t f

o u n d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t A

. L

. n o l o n g e r

q u a l i f i e d f o r c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s

. W e h a v e f o u n d t h a t “ a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f

m o o t n e s s n e i t h e r p r e c l u d e s n o r i s p r e c l u d e d b y a n a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. ”

S t a l e y v

. H a r r i s C n t y

. , 4 8 5 F

. 3 d 3 0 5

, 3 1 4 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c )

. R a t h e r

, t h e

a t t o r n e y s ’ f

e e q u e s t i o n t u r n s o n a w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n : w h e t h e r

t h e p l a i n t i f

f i s t h e “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y

. ” I d

. ( c i t i n g D o e v

. M a r s h a l l

, 6 2 2 F

. 2 d 1 1 8

,

1 2 0 ( 5 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 0 ) )

. T h e r e f o r e

, b e c a u s e w e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e

a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s c l a i m

, w e t u r n t o w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t q u a l i f i e s a s a “ p r e v a i l i n g

p a r t y

. ”

B

. T h e D i s t r i c t Q u a l i f i e s a s a “ P r e v a i l i n g P a r t y ”

W e c o n c l u d e t h a t B e r r y w a i v e d a n y a r g u m e n t o n t h e t h r e s h o l d q u e s t i o n

o f w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t w a s a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” f o r p u r p o s e s o f a n a t t o r n e y s ’

f e e a w a r d u n d e r t h e I D E A

. W e h a v e a p p l i e d t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n

B u c k h a n n o n i n t h e I D E A c o n t e x t a n d h a v e h e l d t h a t

, t o b e a “ p r e v a i l i n g

Becaus e the SEH O and the dis tri ct co urt had juris dic tio n over the cas e whe n it was 8

fil ed, we do not dec ide wh ethe r we wo uld have juris dic tio n to aw ard att orne ys’ fee s unde r the

IDEA if M. L.’ s com plai nt wa s mo ot at the outs et of the liti gation

.

8 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

p a r t y

, ” a l i t i g a n t m u s t p r o c u r e “ s o m e j u d i c i a l i m p r i m a t u r o n a m a t e r i a l

a l t e r a t i o n o f t h e l e g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p

. ” 5 3 2 U

. S

. a t 6 0 3

S 0 5 ( r e j e c t i n g t h e “ c a t a l y s t

t h e o r y ” a n d f

i n d i n g t h a t a “ d e f e n d a n t ’ s v o l u n t a r y c h a n g e i n c o n d u c t

, . . . l a c k s

t h e n e c e s s a r y j u d i c i a l i m p r i m a t u r o n t h e c h a n g e ” t o w a r r a n t “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ”

s t a t u s ) ; R i c h a r d R

. , 5 9 1 F

. 3 d a t 4 2 1

S 2 2 ( f i n d i n g t h a t

, i n t h e I D E A c o n t e x t

, a

“ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” i s o n e t h a t a t t a i n s a r e m e d y t h a t b o t h ( 1 ) a l t e r s t h e l e g a l

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a n d t h e h a n d i c a p p e d c h i l d a n d ( 2 )

f o s t e r s t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e I D E A )

.

B e r r y w a i v e d a n y a r g u m e n t o n t h i s i s s u e b y n o t r e f u t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s

a s s e r t i o n t h a t i t q u a l i f i e d a s a “ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ” i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e

D i s t r i c t ’ s m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o n i t s t h i r d

- p a r t y c o m p l a i n t

. T h e

s c o p e o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o n a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t o r d e r i s l i m i t e d t o m a t t e r s

p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. K e e l a n v

. M a

j e s c o S o f

t w a r e

, I n c

. , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 3 3 2

,

3 3 9 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 )

. I f a p a r t y f a i l s t o a s s e r t a l e g a l r e a s o n w h y s u m m a r y 9

j u d g m e n t s h o u l d n o t b e g r a n t e d

, i t w a i v e s t h a t g r o u n d a n d i t c a n n o t b e

c o n s i d e r e d o r r a i s e d o n a p p e a l

. K e e n a n v

. T

e j e d a

, 2 9 0 F

. 3 d 2 5 2

, 2 6 2 ( 5 t h C i r

.

2 0 0 2 ) ( f

i n d i n g i s s u e s w e r e n o t p r e s e r v e d o n a p p e a l w h e n t h e y w e r e n o t

m e n t i o n e d

, m u c h l e s s a r g u e d

, i n v a r i o u s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s a n d

r e s p o n s e s )

. W e d o n o t c o n s i d e r s u c h i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e o n a p p e a l

.

U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. J a c k s o n

, 4 2 6 F

. 3 d 3 0 1

, 3 0 4 n

. 2 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 5 ) ; Y o h e y

, 9 8 5 F

. 2 d

a t 2 2 5

. 1 0

B e r r y ’s cur so ry ref

ere nce to the lack of a bas is for the Di st ric t’s “p revail ing p a r t y ” 9

st atus in his se par ate mo tio n to dis mi ss the t h i r d

- p a r ty com plai nt— fil ed and deni ed bef ore

the mo tio n for sum mar y judgm ent in ques t i on— wi ll not suf fic e to pr es erve the iss ue. This

mo tio n wa s not a “re sp ons e” to the sum mar y judgm ent mo tio n, and even if it had been, Berr y

pr ovide d no legal sup por t for his argum ent. See Mav eri ck Rec ordi ng Co. v. Ha rp er

, 598 F.3d

193, 198 (5t h Cir. 2010)

, pe t. for cer t. fi le d

, No. 10-94 (U .S . Ma y 26, 2010) (cit ing Kee la n , 407

F.3d at 339, and find ing that a par ty did n ot pr es erve a poi nt for app eal by pr es enti ng it in

cur so ry f

ash ion in a r es pons e t o a s umm ary judgm ent mo tio n).

In any event

, the Apri l 2009 Or der did c a use a mat eria l alte rat ion in the par tie s’ 1 0

rela tio nshi p, as t he dis tri ct cour t fou nd that M.L. ’s claim s w ere moot only af ter f irs t find ing

9 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

B e c a u s e B e r r y w a i v e d a n y a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t w a s n o t a

“ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y

, ” w e t u r n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d

i n a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s t o t h e D i s t r i c t

. 1 1

C

. B e r r y C o n t i n u e d T o L i t i g a t e C l a i m s A f t e r T h e y B e c a m e F r i v o l o u s

T h e I D E A p r o v i d e s t h a t : “ [ i ] n a n y a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g b r o u g h t u n d e r

t h i s s e c t i o n

, t h e c o u r t

, i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n

, m a y a w a r d r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

. . . t o a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y w h o i s a S t a t e e d u c a t i o n a l a g e n c y o r l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a l

a g e n c y a g a i n s t t h e a t t o r n e y o f a p a r e n t w h o f i l e s a c o m p l a i n t o r s u b s e q u e n t

c a u s e o f a c t i o n t h a t i s f r i v o l o u s

, u n r e a s o n a b l e

, o r w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n

, o r

a g a i n s t t h e a t t o r n e y o f a p a r e n t w h o c o n t i n u e d t o l i t i g a t e a f t e r t h e l i t i g a t i o n

c l e a r l y b e c a m e f

r i v o l o u s

, u n r e a s o n a b l e

, o r w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n

. . . . ” 2 0 U

. S

. C

.

§ 1 4 1 5 ( i ) ( 3 ) ( B ) ( i ) ( I I ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. I n a p r i o r c a s e i n v o l v i n g B e r r y

, w e

n o t e d t h a t e x t e n d e d l i t i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e I D E A i s d i s f a v o r e d d u e t o t h e h e a v y

c o s t s i t i m p o s e s o n l i t i g a n t s a n d t h e r e s u l t i n g d e l a y s i n i m p l e m e n t i n g a n

a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a t i o n a l p l a n f o r d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n

. R i c h a r d R

. , 5 9 1 F

. 3 d a t

by a pr epo nder ance of the evide nce that A.L. no longer suf fer ed fr om a sp eec h im ped im ent and

wa s ther efo re ineli gible for com pens ator y se rvice s. Such a find ing grant s the Di st ric t judic ial

reli ef by for eclo sin g M. L.’ s clai m that the Di st ric t mus t pr ovide com pens ator y se rvice s to A.L.

See Di stri ct of Colu m b i a v

. J e p ps en

, 514 F.3d 1287, 1290 (D .C. Cir. 2008) (no ting that “a

def enda nt mi ght be as muc h r ew ard ed by a dis pos itive or der t hat for ever for eclo se s the sui t

on a pr oce dur al or rem edi al ground a s b y a favor able judgm ent on the me rit s” ); Citiz ens for

a Better Env’

t

, 230 F.3d at 930 (ho ldi ng that “w hen a dis mi ss a l f o r wa nt of juris dic tio n

for eclo se s the pl a i n t i f f ’ s clai m, the def

enda nt is the ‘pr evailin g par ty’” ). Thus, we conc lude

that this c ase is d ist inguis hable fr om Straus

, rep eate dly cit ed in Berr y’s brief

. See 590 F.3d

at 901

S 02 (f

indi ng that sc hool wa s not a “p revail ing par ty” wh en the SEH O dis mi ss ed the cas e

as mo ot sol el

y beca use t he sc hool off ere d com ple te reli ef)

.

Becaus e we find that the Dis tri ct is a “p revail ing par ty” under § 1415( i)( 3)( B)( i)( II), 1 1

we do not add res s the Dis tri ct’ s alte rnat ive argum ent tha t it qualif ies as a “pr evailin g State

educ atio nal agency or loca l e d u c a tio nal agency” enti tle d to att orne ys’ fee s unde r §

1415( i)( 3)( B)( i)( III).

1 0 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

4 2 9 n

. 1 4

. T h e I D E A e n d o r s e s s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s a n d e n v i s i o n s t h a t

p a r t i e s w i l l c o o p e r a t e i n r e s o l v i n g d i s p u t e s

. I d

. a t 4 2 5

S 2 6

. 1 2

K e e p i n g t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e I D E A i n m i n d

, w e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n a w a r d i n g f e e s t o t h e D i s t r i c t u n d e r t h e u n i q u e f a c t s o f t h i s

c a s e

. E v e n i f t h e i n i t i a l f i l i n g o f M

. L

. ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t w a s r e a s o n a b l e

, 1 3

t h e I D E A a l l o w s f

o r a n a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s f o r c o n t i n u i n g t o l i t i g a t e a f t e r

a c l a i m c l e a r l y b e c o m e s f r i v o l o u s

, u n r e a s o n a b l e

, o r w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n

. 1 4

D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n

, B e r r y n e v e r c h a l l e n g e d t h e A R D

C o m m i t t e e ’ s f

i n d i n g s t h a t A

. L

. n o l o n g e r q u a l i f i e d f o r c o m p e n s a t o r y s p e e c h

t h e r a p y s e r v i c e s

. N o t o n l y d i d B e r r y c o n t i n u e t o l i t i g a t e c l a i m s f o r s e r v i c e s

t h a t w e r e u n n e c e s s a r y p e r h a p s a s e a r l y a s O c t o b e r 5

, 2 0 0 7

, b u t a l s o B e r r y

a d v i s e d h i s c l i e n t n o t t o a c c e p t t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s o f f e r s o f f u l l r e l i e f

. C f

. D i s t r i c t o f

C o l u m b i a v

. I

j e a b u o n w u

, 6 3 1 F

. S u p p

. 2 d 1 0 1

, 1 0 5 ( D

. D

. C

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( g r a n t i n g a

m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s u n d e r t h e I D E A a f t e r f i n d i n g

t h a t a p a r t y w a s n o t r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n t i n u e t h r o u g h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s

a f t e r i t r e c e i v e d a l l r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f

, a s t h i s l e f t n o s u b s t a n t i v e d i s p u t e s t o

l i t i g a t e )

.

For examp le, the IDEA bars an award of att orne ys’ fees for w ork perf orm ed af

ter a 1 2

wr itt en se ttl em ent offe r if that wo rk doe s not pr oduc e mo re favorable res ults than the off er.

20 U. S. C. § 1415( i)( 3)( D) (i)

. The IDEA als o pr ovide s for a red uct ion in a f e e a w a rd wh en a

par ent or par ent’ s att orne y unrea so nably pr otr act s fina l res olut ion of a cont rover sy. 20 U. S. C.

§ 1415( i)( 3)( F)( i); See Ric har d R.

, 591 F.3d at 429

S 30 (c oncl udin g that the dis tri ct cour t abus ed

its dis cre tio n i n a w a r ding att orne ys’ fee s to the plai ntif f for wo rk done bef

ore a wr itt en

se ttl em ent off

er pr ovidi ng all requ es t ed reli ef, as ref usi ng to acc ept that off er cons tit uted

unrea so nable pr otr act ion of the liti gation ); Do ugla s W. ex. rel

. Jas on D. W. v. Ho us. Indep. Sch.

Di st.

, 158 F.3d 205, 211 (5t h Cir. 1998) (f indi ng that fai lure to se ttl e can cons tit ute pr otr act ion

unde r § 1 415( i)( 3)( F) and thus w arr ant a r educ tio n i n a par ent’ s att orne ys’ f ee aw ard ).

Berry doe s not cont es t the dis tri ct cour t’s calcul atio n of the at tor neys ’ fee awar d or 1 3

its deci sio n to red uce tha t aw ard

. Thus

, we on ly c ons ide r Berr y’s c hallen ge t o t he aw ard ing

of any at tor neys ’ fee s at all.

Not ably, the dis tri ct cour t did not bas e the att orne ys’ fee aw ard on the init ial st ages 1 4

of liti gation

.

1 1 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

B e r r y i n s i s t s t h a t “ r e f u s i n g t o a c c e p t a s e t t l e m e n t o f f e r ” c a n n o t b e

g r o u n d s f

o r a n a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e a w a r d a n d j u s t i f i e s t h e r e j e c t i o n o f

t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s

o f f e r s b y c i t i n g a l l e g e d a m b i g u i t i e s i n t h e c a s e l a w a s t o t h e i r j u d i c i a l

e n f o r c e a b i l i t y

. B e r r y ’ s a r g u m e n t s a r e t e n u o u s a t b e s t

, a s t h e I D E A p r o v i d e s

1 5

f o r t h e e n f

o r c e a b i l i t y o f s e t t l e m e n t a g r e e m e n t s a n d B e r r y s e e m e d t o c o n c e d e 1 6

t h a t o n e o f t h e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 7 o f f e r s w a s e n f

o r c e a b l e i n h i s r e s p o n s e t o t h e

D i s t r i c t ’ s m o t i o n f

o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t

. E v e n a s s u m i n g t h a t i t w a s 1 7

r e a s o n a b l e t o r e j e c t t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s o f f e r s

, t h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s m o r e t h a n a “ r e f u s a l

t o s e t t l e

. ” I n s t e a d

, t h i s c a s e i n v o l v e s a n a t t o r n e y r e p e a t e d l y p r o l o n g i n g

l i t i g a t i o n a n d s t o n e w a l l i n g e f f o r t s t o c o n c l u d e i t t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f h i s

c l i e n t

— A

. L

. — w h o c o n t i n u e d r e c e i v i n g s e r v i c e s u n d e r a n o l d a n d u n n e c e s s a r y

p l a n w h i l e t h e “ g r o w n

- u p s ” f o u g h t

.

A s f u r t h e r s u p p o r t f

o r t h e a w a r d

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t e d t h a t B e r r y

c o n t i n u e d t o r e s i s t t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s e f f o r t s t o p r o v i d e A

. L

. w i t h a F A P E a l m o s t a

y e a r a f t e r f i l i n g t h e d u e p r o c e s s c o m p l a i n t a n d t e n m o n t h s a f t e r t h e D i s t r i c t

o f f e r e d a l l r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f

. A s a n e x a m p l e o f B e r r y ’ s r e s i s t a n c e

, t h e c o u r t c i t e d

a n i n c i d e n t w h e r e B e r r y a n d M

. L

. a t t e n d e d a n A R D C o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g o n

O c t o b e r 2

, 2 0 0 8 o n l y t o a n n o u n c e t h a t t h e y w o u l d r e l y o n t h e I D E A ’ s “ s t a y p u t ”

p r o v i s i o n s a n d w o u l d n o t a g r e e t o a n y c h a n g e s t o A

. L

. ’ s I E P

. T h e t w o t h e n l e f t

Sp ecif ical ly, Berr y argued that the Di st ric t’s s ett lem ent off ers cons tit uted “p rivat e 1 5

se ttl em ent agre em ents ” and that

, bas ed on a d ist ric t cour t dec isi on, such agre em ents woul d

lack for ce in eit her feder al or state cour t. See El Pas o Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Ric har d R.

, 567 F.

Sup p

. 2 d 9 1 8

, 9 34 (W. D. Tex. 2008)

. Ho we ver, the dis tri ct cour t in this cas e fou nd that the

Di st ric t’s se ttl em ent off ers we re sub st antive ly dif fer ent than the off

er at iss ue in Ric har d R.

Mo st nota bly, the off

er in Ric har d R. did not allow for sub st antive judic i a l r e v i e w, wh ile at

leas t one of

the Di st ric t’s prop os ed s ett lem ent agre em ents stip ulate d to the enfor ceab ilit y of

the agree me nt in a s tat e o r fed eral c ourt

.

See 20 U .S .C. § 1415( f) (1) (B) (ii i)( II). 1 6

Berr y st ated that the Di st ric t’s se cond se ttl em ent agree me nt wo uld be enf orc eable 1 7

pur sua nt to § 1415( e)( 2)( F)( iii)

, but M. L. did not acc ept it beca use it allege dly dep rived her of

the right t o c onte st an ARD Com mi tte e d ecis ion to rem ove A.L. f rom s pec ial educ atio n.

1 2 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/08/2010N o

. 0 9

- 5 0 8 4 1

t h e m e e t i n g

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o u n d t h a t B e r r y ’ s s t o n e w a l l i n g t a c t i c s r e s u l t e d

i n t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s f o r A

. L

. u n d e r a t h r e e

- y e a r o l d I E P f o r a s p e e c h

i m p e d i m e n t f

r o m w h i c h h e n o l o n g e r s u f f e r e d

. A t t h e s a m e t i m e

, B e r r y a n d

M

. L

. r e f

u s e d t o a l l o w t h e D i s t r i c t t o e v a l u a t e A

. L

. f o r s e r v i c e s f

r o m w h i c h h e

m i g h t a c t u a l l y b e n e f i t

. W e a g r e e w i t h B e r r y t h a t a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s a g a i n s t t h e

p a r e n t s ’ a t t o r n e y i n a n I D E A c a s e a r e n o t a u t o m a t i c a n d m u s t b e b a s e d o n

u n r e a s o n a b l e o r h a r a s s i n g c o n d u c t

. G i v e n B e r r y ’ s e x t r e m e a n d

— w e h o p e

—

u n i q u e c o m b i n a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r s

, i n c l u d i n g t h e r e f u s a l t o a c c e p t a l l o f

f e r e d

r e l i e f

, t h e c o n t i n u e d l i t i g a t i o n o f a c l a i m f o r c o m p e n s a t o r y s e r v i c e s a r g u a b l y

u n n e c e s s a r y a s e a r l y a s O c t o b e r 2 0 0 7

, a n d s t o n e w a l l i n g t a c t i c s

, w e c o n c l u d e

t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t

B e r r y c o n t i n u e d t o l i t i g a t e c l a i m s a f t e r t h e y c l e a r l y b e c a m e f r i v o l o u s

,

u n r e a s o n a b l e

, a n d w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n s u c h t h a t a n a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s t o

t h e D i s t r i c t w a s p e r m i s s i b l e

.

D

. B e r r y ’ s R u l e 1 1 A r g u m e n t

B e r r y p r o v i d e s n o l e g a l a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t w a s

r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 1 1 ’ s “ s a f e h a r b o r ” p r o v i s i o n s w h e n b r i n g i n g a

c l a i m f o r a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s u n d e r t h e I D E A

. A s t h e D i s t r i c t s o u g h t a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s

u n d e r t h e I D E A

, n o t R u l e 1 1

, t h i s a r g u m e n t l a c k s m e r i t

. D o u g l a s W

. , 1 5 8 F

. 3 d

a t 2 1 0

S 1 1 n

. 4 ( “ f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e a n y l e g a l o r f a c t u a l a n a l y s i s o f a n i s s u e o n

a p p e a l w a i v e s t h a t i s s u e ” )

.

I V

. C o n c l u s i o n

W e A F F I R M t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s g r a n t o f s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r t h e

D i s t r i c t o n i t s a t t o r n e y s ’ f e e s c l a i m a g a i n s t B e r r y

.

1 3 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/08/2010