Case Name: Victoria HALL; Ralph Hall, individually and on behalf of J.H. a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 21, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-14
Citations: 544 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 12-15523
Parties: Victoria HALL; Ralph Hall, individually and on behalf of J.H. a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 21, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 544
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
Victoria HALL; Ralph Hall, individually and on behalf of J.H. a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 21, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 12-15523.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2013.
Filed Nov. 14, 2013.
David Lawrence Abney, Esquire, Law Offices of Charles M. Brewer, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, Amy Grace Langerman, Amy Langerman PC, Coronado, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Karl H. Widell, Esquire, Robert D. Haws, Gust Rosenfeld, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Victoria and Ralph Hall appeal the district court's order which awarded them attorney's fees after they prevailed in their action against Coolidge Unified School District No. 21. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). We affirm.
We have carefully reviewed the record and we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined the "rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished" and then calculated the fee award based upon those rates.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See United States, v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261-62 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc); Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 374 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir.2004).
. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547 n. 11, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984); Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2009); Shapiro, 374 F.3d at 865-66; Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir.1997); Greater L.A. Council on Deafness v. Cmty. Television of S. Cal., 813 F.2d 217, 221 (9th Cir.1987).
.The Halls suggest that the State Bar of Arizona's, 2010 Economics of Law Practice in Arizona, upon which the district court relied, is inadmissible hearsay. However, that issue was not raised before the district court. We decline to consider it. See O'Guinn v. Lovelock Con. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007); Pfingston v. Ronan Eng'g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1003-04 (9th Cir.2002).