McSOMEBODIES v. SAN MATEO CITY SCHOOL DIST

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 89-15270.

Attorney(S)

Kathryn E. Dobel, Berkeley, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants. Diane E. Finkelstein, Shupe and Finkelstein, San Mateo, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Judges

Richard Harvey Chambers

Acts

Education — Education Of Individuals With Disabilities — Assistance For Education Of All Children With Disabilities — Procedural Safeguards

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This case involves a handicapped child enrolled in the San Mateo City School District and a pair of parents who challenged the denial of attorney's fees by the School District. After an administrative hearing pursuant to the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B), the parents prevailed on the issue of placement. However, the School District refused to pay attorney's fees. The parents then sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which ruled against them. This appeal followed. This case is a companion to a related case involving different parties and a different child, also addressing similar legal issues.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether parents who prevail on the issue of placement for their handicapped child under the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 are entitled to attorney's fees.
Whether the denial of attorney's fees by the School District was appropriate under existing legal precedents.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McSomebodies, et al., (No. 1) v. Burlingame Elementary School District, 886 F.2d 1558 (9th Cir. 1989)	Interpretation of attorney's fees entitlement under the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 in cases involving placement of handicapped children.	The court applied the reasoning and decision from this companion case to reverse the district court's denial of attorney's fees in the present case.
Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B)	Statutory provision governing administrative hearings and attorney's fees for parents of handicapped children.	Provided the statutory framework under which the parents prevailed on placement and sought attorney's fees.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized that although the district court's decision denying attorney's fees had some merit at the time, subsequent legal developments and the majority of cases now support awarding attorney's fees to prevailing parents in such cases. The court declined to follow the minority position that would deny fees. It relied on the companion case McSomebodies (No. 1) as controlling precedent. Thus, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with the prevailing interpretation favoring attorney's fees for parents who prevail on placement issues under the statute.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED the district court's judgment denying attorney's fees and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision and the companion case.

The direct effect is that parents who prevail on placement issues under the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 are entitled to attorney's fees, aligning with the majority of cases. No new precedent was established beyond applying existing majority views and the companion case ruling.

Show full summary ...

McSOMEBODIES, ET AL., (No. 2), PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. SAN MATEO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

This is a companion case to our McSomebodies, et al., (No. 1) v. Burlingame Elementary School District, 886 F.2d 1558 (9th Cir. 1989). Here we have a different pair of parents and a different child. Again we change the name in the caption to keep the child's name out of the buckram.

Again, the second case involves a handicapped child enrolled in the San Mateo City School District. After an administrative hearing pursuant to the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B), the parents prevailed on the issue of placement, but the School District denied attorney's fees.

Eventually, the parents sued in the U.S. District Court, and judgment went against them. This appeal followed.

At the time of the district court decisions in the Burlingame and San Mateo City cases, there was much to be said for the court's rulings, but subsequent cases have overtaken us. The overwhelming majority of cases now support fees from bottom to top. We decline to follow any of the minority.

REVERSED for proceedings consistent with our decision in McSomebodies (No. 1) and the above McSomebodies (No. 2).