N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JON E. FR

UDDEN, a s pa

re n t and gua rdia n of his minor c hild Ja

ne Doe , a n d K.F., * Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. KAYANN PILLING, individua lly , a nd in he r offic ia l c a

pa c ity a s the Princ ipa l of R oy Gom m Ele m e nta ry Sc hool a nd a s a n e xe c utive dire c t or of the R oy G om m Ele m e nta ry Sc hool Pa

re nt-Fa c ulty Assoc iation, Inc ; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-15704 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00474-R C J-W GC

M EM O R ANDUM * *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 26, 2020 * ** La s Ve ga s , Ne va da 

# FIL ED APR 15 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* Pla intiffs’ -Appe l la

nts’ M otion to Substitute

R e a l Pa rty in Inte re st K.F., Now a

n Adult, a s a

Nam e d Pla intiff-Appe lla nt is GR ANTED insofa

r a s it se e k s to a dd K.F. a s a

nam e d Pla intiff-Appe l la

nt. The C le rk sha ll a

m e nd the doc ke t to re fle c t the substitution.

* * This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B YB EE, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts Jon E. Frudden , on be ha lf of his minor c hild Ja ne Doe , and K.F., his son, who ha s now re a c he d the a ge of m a jority , a ppe a l the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing the ir m otion for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1988. W e a ffirm
. The Frudde ns sue d the ir c hildre n’ s e le m e nta ry sc h ool a nd sc hool offic ia ls,
c ha lle nging thesc hool’ s uniform polic y unde r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983. In the ir initia l
c om pla i nt, both Jon Frudde

n a nd M ary Frudde n we re individual pla intiffs a nd
a sse rte d the ir own c la im s in a ddition to c la i m s on be h a l f of the ir m inor c hildre n. M ary , a lic e nse d attorne y , re pre se nte d the fam ily pro se . The distric t c ourt dismisse d the ir c la im s . F rudde n v . Pilling (Frudde n I) , 842 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1282 (D. Ne v. 2012). The Frudde ns a ppe a le d only

one c la im : tha t the sc hool’ s uniform

polic y viola te d the fre e spe e c h rights of the ir
m inor c hildre n unde r the First Am e ndm e nt. W e re v e rse d a nd re m ande d , holding that stric t sc rutiny a pplie d to the uniform

polic y . Frudde n v . Pilling (Frudde n II) , 742 F.3d 1199, 1208 (9th C ir. 2014).

* * * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). 2On re m and, the Frudde ns file d a se c ond a m e n de d c om

pla int. The y

a sse rte d only one c la im

in the se c ond a

m e nde d c om

pla int: a fre e spe e c h c la im

on be ha lf of the Frudde n c hildre n. The only pla intiff in thea c tion wa s “ Jon Frudde n, a s pa re nt
and gua rdia n of his minor c h i ldre n, John Doeand Ja ne Doe .” The se c ond a

m e nde d
c om pla i nt inc lude d no c la i m s a sse rting the individual rights of Jon or M ary . M ary re pre se nte d the Frudde ns be fore the distric t c ourt a nd in subse que nt a

ppe a ls. The distric t c ourt he ld tha t the sc hool uniform polic y survive d stric t sc rutiny , Frudde n v . Pilling (Frudde n III) , No. 3:11–c v–00474–RC J–VPC , 2015 W L 540206, a t *8 (D. Ne v. Fe b. 10, 2015), a n d we re v e rse d in substa

ntia l pa rt, Frudde n v . Pilling (Frudde n IV) , 877 F.3d 821, 833 (9th C ir. 2017). W e transfe rre d the Frudde ns’ re q ue st for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s on a

ppe a l to thedistric t c ourt. The distric t c ourt de nie d the re que st on theground tha t attorne y pa re nts
re pre se nting theinte re s ts of the ir m inor c hildre n a re not e ntitle d to fe e s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1988. W e a gre e . The Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t pro se litiga

nts m a y not re c ove r a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1988, be c a use C o ngre ss’ s inte nt in providing for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s wa s to e nc oura ge litiga nts to obtain the c o unse l of a n inde pe nde nt third pa

rty . K ay v . Ehrle r , 499 U.S. 432, 437–38 (1991). R e ly ing on K

ay , we he ld tha

t the

“ virtua l ly ide ntic a l” fe e shifting provision of the Individua ls with Disa

bilitie s
3Educ ation Ac t, 20 U.S.C . § 1415, did not a llow a n attorne y pa

re nt to re c ove r attorne y ’ s fe e s in a

n a c tion a sse rting the rights of the attorne y ’ s m inor c hild. Ford
v . Long Be ac h Unifie d Sc h. Dist. , 461 F.3d 1087, 1090–91 (9th C ir. 2006). As in thec a se of a

pro se litiga

nt, a m inor c hild re pre se nte d by a pa re nt doe s not be ne fit from

“ the judgm e nt of a

n i nde pe nde n t third pa rty .” Id. at 1090 (quoting K

ay , 499 U.S. a

t 437). Unlike

an a dult re lative , a

c hild c annot m ak e an

“ inform e d c hoic e a s to whe the r [a pa re nt] c an fa irly

re pre se nt [the c hild’ s ] inte re s ts.” Ric k

le y v . C ounty of Los Ange le

s , 654 F.3d 950, 956 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d); se e J

ohns v . C ounty of San Die

go , 114 F.3d 874, 876 (9th C ir. 1997). The Frudde n s the re fore m ay not re c ove r a ttorne y ’ s fe e s for M a ry ’ s work
re pre se nting he r m inor c hildre n. The Frudde ns a lso c onte nd tha t Jon ha s sta

nding to proc e e d a s a

pla intiff in his individua

l c a pa c ity in this c a se , a

nd tha t he should there fore be a l lowe d to
re c o ve r fe e s for M ary ’ s work re pre se nting him . W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r Jon
m ay have be e n a

ble to a sse rt c la im s on his own beha lf, be c a u se he and M ary a ba ndone d a ny c la im s on the ir own be ha lf a fte r the ir first a ppe a l . The ope ra tive
c om pla i nt in this c a se a sse rte d only a c la i m on be ha lf of the Frudde n c hildre n for a viola tion of thec hildre n’ s fre e spe e c h rights. A c ha nge to the c a se c a

p tion a t this

4late sta ge ha s no be aring on whe the r the Frudde ns m ay re c ove r fe e s for a

n e arlie r a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

5