### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20628 Summary Calendar

ALIEF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, and their Respective Employees and Members of the Board of Trustees, Plaintiff-Appellee v. C. C., by next friend Kenneth & Nneka C., Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendants-App e l l a nts are parents of a minor child who filed an
unsuccess f

u l administrative complaint a gainst the Plaintiff-Appellee school district. The dist r i c t c o urt denied the school district’s subsequent request for attorneys’ fees. Although the parents asserted that the district c o urt’s denial of attorneys’ fees in turn rendered them prevailing parties—potentially entitling them to attorneys’ fees—the distr i c t c ourt d eclined to award attorneys’ fees to the parents. Because defeating a request for attorneys’ fees is n ot t h e t y pe of

success on the merits required to establish prevailing party status, we AFFIRM. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 3, 2013 Ly l e W . Cayce Clerk Case: 12-20628 Document: 00512196453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2013No. 12-20628 I. C

. C

. i s a disabled minor child e nrolled in school in Texas’s Alief Independent School District (“AISD”). On May 29, 2007, C.C.’s p a rents (“the Parents”) filed an a dministrative complaint against AISD with the Texas E du cation Agency, alleging m ultiple violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). In response, AISD f i led a request for a h earing and d eclaratory judgment. Declining to proceed further, the parents voluntarily dismissed their complaint. However, AISD proceeded with the hearing and p resented unop p o s e d evidence demonstrating its c ompliance with the IDEA. After the administrative Hearing Officer ruled in favor of AISD, AISD filed suit in the district court under 20 U .S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees. Specifically, AISD alleged that it was entitled to attorneys’ fees because the Parents had f iled their I D E A complaint for an “improper p urpose.” See id

. The district court rej e c t e d AISD’s a r gument, refused t o impose attorneys’ fees, and entered judgment accordingly. The Parents then petitioned the district court for their own attorneys’ fees, arguing that by successfully defeating AISD’s c l aim for attorneys’ fees, they had become a “pr evailing party” entitled to attorneys’ fees under the IDEA. The district court summarily denied the petition, and the Parents now appeal. I I. We r eview a district court’s grant or denial of attorneys’ fees under the IDEA for abuse of discretion. T.B. ex rel. Debbra B. v . Bryan Indep

. Sch. Dist. , 628 F

. 3 d 2 4 0, 243 (5th Cir. 2010). H owever, we review u nderlying c onclusions of law and interpretations of the statute de novo. Id

.

2 Case: 12-20628 Document: 00512196453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2013No. 12-20628 III. The only question b efore us is whether a parent who loses a suit under the IDEA b ecomes a “prevailing party” by d efeating a subsequent petition for attorneys’ fees. The relevant IDEA st a t u t o ry provision provides, “In a ny action or proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs— (I) to a prevailing party who is the p ar e n t o f a c h ild with a disability.” 20 U .S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). Thus, only a parent who can rightly b e classified as a “prevailing p arty” is entitled to attorneys’ fees. The “touchstone of the prevailing party i nquiry must be the material alteration of the lega l r e l ationship of the parties in a m anner which C ongress sought to promo t e i n t h e f ee statute.” El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R ., 5 9 1 F .3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 2009). “Under the IDEA, a prevailing party i s o n e that attains a remedy that both ( 1) alters the legal relationship between the

s c h o o l district a nd the handicapped child and (2) fosters the purposes o f th e IDEA.” Id

. at 421–22. While a party does n ot need to p re v ail on every issue to become a prevailing party, she must prevail on some “significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in b ringing suit.” See H ensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). M oreover, the relief obtained must be “a judgment on the merit s , a consent decree, or some similar form of judicially sanctioned relief.” Richard R ., 591 F.3d at 422. The Parents argue that they are prevailing parties u nder this standard, because they hav e a c h i eved a remedy that “altered the legal r e lationship” between the parties. Because the district court has perm a n ently foreclosed AISD’s ability to seek attorneys’ fees, the Parents argue, their legal relationship to AISD has been o fficially altered. While the Parents h ave prevailed in a very
narrow and hollow s ense, this is precisely the type of “ de minimis” o r “technical
3 Case: 12-20628 Document: 00512196453 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2013No. 12-20628

victory” that the Supreme Court has f ound so i nsign i ficant a s to not create prevailing party status. See Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist ., 489 U.S. 7 8 2 , 792 (1989). As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, “Our ‘ [r]espect for or d i n a ry language requires that a plaintiff receive at least some relief on the merits o f his c laim before he can b e said to prevail.’” 1 Successfully refuting a claim for attorneys ’ f e e s i s n ot a benefit that the Parents sought in bringing suit, nor can it rightfully be described as “relief

on the merits” or a tru e “r e m e dy” of any nature. 2 The Parents filed an unsuccessful complaint a nd wer e m e r e ly fortunate enough to have the lower court deny a common r equest for attorneys’ fees. I n no way have they succeeded on the merits of their claim or achieved a desired remedy. Our review of caselaw confirms this i nterpretation. The type o f victories, short o f t otal s uccess, to which the Supreme C ourt has been wil l i n g t o a scribe prevailing party st a t u s are in the n ature of settlement agreements enforced through a consent decree, partial success o n the merits, injunc t iv e r e lief, declaratory relief, and nominal d amages. 3 The only c a s e w e h ave l ocated that considers a similar factual situation is R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified School District , 631 F.3d 1117, 1127–28 (9th Cir. 2011). I n Prescott U S D , t he Ninth Circuit reviewe d t h e district court’s rejection of a n I DEA claim brought by parents of a disabled child against an Arizona sch o o l d i s trict. Though the Prescott USD court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the IDEA claim, it reversed the district c ourt’s award of attorneys’ fees to the school district. Id

. at 1124–27. However, the court also d enied th e parents’ subsequent request for

1 Buckha nnon Bd. & Ca re H om e, Inc. v . West V

i rgi ni a Dep t

. of H

ea l th & Hum a n Resources , 532 U

. S. 598, 603 ( 2001) ( quoting Hew i tt v . H el m s , 482 U. S. 755, 760 ( 1987) )

.
2 See Buckha nnon , 532 U

. S. at 603; Ri cha rd R

. , 591 F. 3d at 422.

3 See Buckha nnon , 532 U

. S

. a t 6 0 4 ; T exas Lef em i ne v. Wi dem a n , 133 S. Ct. 9 ( 2012) (p er curiam )

. 4 Case: 12-20628 Document: 00512196453 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/03/2013No. 12-20628

attorneys’ fees, stating: “Because the parents aren’t entitled to relief on the merits of their I DEA claim, they aren’t entitled to f ees on appeal. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I) (permitting an award o f fees to a “prevailing party”).” Id

. at 1127–28. We agree with the Ninth C ircuit that successfully defending an ancillary request for attorneys’ fees, without more, does not qualify as the relief on the merits necessary to create a prevailing party. IV. For t h e reasons stated above, the judgment o f the district court is AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 12-20628 Document: 00512196453 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/03/2013