Opinion ID: 178968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court. Septimus v. Univ. of Hous., 399 F.3d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(c). We view summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, with all factual inferences drawn in the nonmovant’s favor. Chiu v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 339 F.3d 273, 279 (5th Cir. 2003). We may “affirm a grant of summary judgment on any grounds supported by the record and presented to the [district] court.” Hernandez v. Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 2008). 6 In relation to the District’s counterclaim, the district court concluded that it was unclear whether the IDEA fee-shifting provisions contemplated an attorneys’ fee award for counterclaims. Because the district court did not base the award on the counterclaim, we do not reach this issue. We also assume without deciding that Berry’s complaint was an “action or proceeding” under § 1415, as Berry waived any argument to the contrary by failing to raise the issue until his reply brief. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (“As a general rule, this Court does not review issues raised for the first time on appeal.”). 6 Case: 09-50841 Document: 00511288059 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/08/2010 No. 09-50841 The IDEA provides a court with discretion to award attorneys’ fees to a “prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(II). Whether a party qualifies as a “prevailing party” is “a legal question subject to de novo review.” Bailey v. Mississippi, 407 F.3d 684, 687 (5th Cir. 2005). Even if the standards for awarding attorneys’ fees are met, the district court is vested with discretion as to whether or not to award them. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist v. Richard R., 591 F.3d 417, 425 n.9 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3467 (2010).