WILSON v. GOVERNMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

These statements are not bare legal conclusions nor are they "cryptic" in nature, as the defendant alleges, Def.'s Mot. at 9; rather, the plaintiff offers specific factual assertions to support her conclusion that she was a prevailing party in the IDEA administrative proceeding, as is necessary to recover on her claim for attorneys' fees.

Second, the defendant's claim that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that her lawyer submitted an invoice for attorneys' fees for the School System's consideration prior to this litigation is in error. Id. In her complaint, the plaintiff states that "[her lawyer] properly submitted an invoice to [the School System] for legal services [her lawyer] rendered to the [p]laintiff[]. See Attachment B." Compl. ¶ 16. Although the defendant poignantly notes that "Attachment B" was in fact not attached to the complaint, Def.'s Mot. at 9, the inclusion of this Attachment is not necessary for the defendant to comprehend the factual allegations in the complaint. In other words, the failure to attach this document does not render the complaint so vague or ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably prepare a response, although the absence of proof of an invoice may ultimately be relevant to the merits of the plaintiff's claim. Moreover, a more definite statement on this point is not required.

Third, the defendant's claim that the plaintiff fails to allege facts relied upon as to the reasonableness of the attorneys' fees sought is without merit. Id. To show the reasonableness of the attorney's fees requested, the plaintiff notes that the "services provided by [her attorney] were ordinary and necessary to successfully represent the [p]laintiff[]" and that the services her attorney provided "were consistent with the level of services provided to other[] . . . clients [of her attorney] based on [her attorney's] expertise, experience[,] and understanding of the law to be applied in the case and [her attorney's] normal office practices." Compl. ¶ 14-15. The Court considers these factual allegations to be sufficient for the liberal pleading standards under Rule 8(a) and, thus, the plaintiff's statements in her complaint do not require a more definite statement.

Lastly, the defendant's claim that the plaintiff's complaint fails to alleged facts as to how (or whether) the School System resolved the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees following her lawyer's alleged submission of an invoice must too be rejected. The complaint states that the School System "has not issued payment of the [p]laintiff's attorneys' fees set forth in [the plaintiff's lawyer]'s legal services invoice." Id. ¶ 17. A reasonable reading of the plain language of this assertion indicates that the School System has not paid any of the attorneys' fees the plaintiff claims. This sentence does not contain any legal conclusions, but instead is a mere factual allegation. Since no proof is required at the pleading stage, as noted above, the Court finds this portion of the complaint to be sufficient.

In conclusion, the Court must deny the defendant's motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). Moreover, the Court finds the plaintiff's complaint sufficient under the liberal pleading standard of Rule 8(a), as it is not so vague or ambiguous that the defendant cannot reasonably be required to answer.

C. The Plaintiff's Prevailing-Party Status Claim.

The Court now turns to the arguments the defendant offers in support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The IDEA only allows for an award of attorneys' fees to a "prevailing" party.See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I)-(III). With respect to the plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees, the most relevant subsection states that "the [federal] court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys' fees as part of the costs — (I) to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a disability." Id. at (i)(3)(B)(i). The plaintiff alleges, both in her complaint and in her opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss, that she was a prevailing party in the underlying administrative proceeding. See Compl. ¶¶ 9-11; Pl.'s Opp'n. at 1. The plaintiff bases this assertion on two factual allegations: (1) the Hearing Officer determined that the School System was denying the plaintiff's son a free and appropriate public education by placing him in an inappropriate school; and (2) the Hearing Officer transferred the plaintiff's son to the school the plaintiff requested. Compl. ¶¶ 10-11; Pl.'s Opp'n. at 1. Conversely, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to show that she was a prevailing party in the administrative proceeding because the "legal relationship" between the parties did not change as a result of the proceeding. Def.'s Mem. at 7; Def.'s Reply at 3.

A prevailing party is one that succeeds "on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the part[y] sought in bringing suit." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983) (quotingNadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir. 1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). The District of Columbia Circuit has established a three-part test in determining prevailing-party status: "(1) there must be a `court-ordered change in the legal relationship' of the parties; (2) the judgment must be in favor of the party seeking the fees; and (3) the judicial pronouncement must be accompanied by judicial relief."District of Columbia v. Straus, 590 F.3d 898, 901 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Moreover, "it is the province of the district court to make the ultimate decision as to who prevailed in an IDEA action," Artis v. District of Columbia, 543 F. Supp. 2d 15, 22 (D.D.C. 2008) (citation omitted), and generally "[w]hen a hearing officer finds that a student was denied access to a free appropriate public education, the student may usually recover reasonable attorney's fees as the prevailing party because a denial of a free appropriate public education is a direct violation of the [IDEA] statute." Id. at 22.

Here, the plaintiff's allegations support the conclusion that that Hearing Officer in the administrative proceeding ruled in favor of the plaintiff on two significant issues. First, and most notably, the plaintiff asserts that "the Hearing Officer found that . . . [the School System] denied Y.W. a free and appropriate public education . . . by placing Y.W. in an inappropriate school placement." Compl. ¶ 10. The Court agrees that this determination establishes that at least on one significant point at issue in the administrative proceeding, the plaintiff was a prevailing party. Second, according to the plaintiff, she is a prevailing party because the Hearing Officer ordered that her son be transferred to the school the plaintiff specifically requested. See id. ¶ 11. Again, the Court must side with the plaintiff because the District of Columbia Circuit has conferred prevailing-party status on a plaintiff in IDEA administrative proceedings where the School System has "acceded" to the plaintiff's claims. Jester v. District of Columbia, 474 F.3d 820, 821 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The administrative order here is therefore sufficient to satisfy the requirement that there be "judicialimprimatur on the change" in the parties' legal relationship,Buckhannon Bd. Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). For both of these reasons, the Court finds that the plaintiff has adequately alleged that she was a prevailing party in the underlying administrative hearing.

D. The Defendant's Statute of Limitations Claim.

Under the subsection of the IDEA allowing for an action to recover attorneys' fees, no statute of limitations is provided.See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3). The defendant argues that the governing statute of limitations should be the same as the 90-day limitations period applicable to appeals of IDEA administrative hearings submitted to district courts. See Def.'s Mem. at 10 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B)). The plaintiff argues in response that the applicable statute of limitations should be three years. Pl.'s Opp'n at 4. The Court agrees with the plaintiff.

The District of Columbia Circuit has stated that "[w]hen Congress has not established a statute of limitations for a federal cause of action, it is well-settled that federal courts may `borrow' one from an analogous state cause of action, provided that the state limitations period is not inconsistent with underlying federal policies." Spiegler v. District of Columbia, 866 F.2d 461, 463-64 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing, among others,Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-67 (1985)). Given that there is no explicit statute of limitations for this action for attorneys' fees following an IDEA administrative hearing, courts are split over what statute of limitations to apply in this context based on their disagreement as to what this form of action is most analogous to under their respective state causes of action. The most prominent division among courts lies in determining whether the action is ancillary to, or independent from, the underlying administrative proceeding. See Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637, 640 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("The single issue presented on appeal is whether IDEA administrative proceedings and subsequent litigation regarding attorneys' fees are part of the same `action,' . . . or whether such litigation constitutes a new `action.'"). Courts that find an action for attorneys' fees independent from the underlying IDEA administrative proceedings assign a longer statute of limitations period, often periods spanning several years, whereas courts finding an action for attorneys' fees ancillary to the underlying IDEA administrative proceedings assign shorter statute of limitations periods comparable to a period applied to judicial review of the administrative proceeding itself. Compare Brown ex rel. P.L. v. Barbara Jordan P.C.S., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2007) (applying three-year-long "catch-all" statute of limitations periods); Akinseye v. District of Columbia, 193 F. Supp. 2d 134, 144-45 (D.D.C. 2002) (Walton, J.), rev'd on other grounds, 339 F.3d 970 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (same); Zipperer ex rel. Zipperer v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole Cnty., Fla., 111 F.3d 847, 852 (11th Cir. 1997) (applying Florida's similar four-year statute of limitations);Taylor P. ex rel. Chris P. v. Mo. Dep't of Elementary Secondary Educ., No. 06-4254-CV-CNKL, 2007 WL 2360061, at *5 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 14, 2007) (applying Missouri's five-year limitations period); Anthony F. v. Sch. Comm. of Medford, No. Civ.A.04-10610-RWZ, 2005 WL 1262090, at *2 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2005) (employing a three-year-long statute of limitations period generally applicable to actions against state entities);Holmes ex rel. Hitchens v. Dep't of Educ., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1158 n. 2 (D. Haw. 2002) (applying Hawaii's two-year statute of limitations period); Ostby v. Oxnard Union High, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1035, 1044-45 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (applying California's three-year limitations period);Dickerson ex rel. Ingram v. Brodgen, 80 F. Supp. 2d 1319, 1322 (S.D. Ala. 1999) (applying Alabama's two-year limitations period);Shanahan v. Bd. of Educ., 953 F. Supp. 440, 443 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (applying New York's similar four-year statute of limitations); J.B. ex rel. C.B. v. Essex-Caledonia Supervisory Union, 943 F. Supp. 387, 391 (D. Vt. 1996) (applying "Vermont's six year `catch-all' statute of limitations"); Curtis K. ex rel. Delores K. v. Sioux City Cmty. Sch. Dist., 895 F. Supp. 1197, 1220-21 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (applying Iowa's "five-year statute of limitations [which covers] actions for which no other statute of limitations is specified");Verginia McC ex rel. Mr. Mrs. McC v. Corrigan-Camden Indep. Sch. Dist., 909 F. Supp. 1023, 1033-34 (E.D. Tex. 1995) (citing Scokin v. Texas, 723 F.2d 432, 436 (5th Cir. 1984)) (applying Texas's two-year statute of limitations period applicable to actions for damage or injury to person or property, or tort claims); James v. Nashua Sch. Dist., 720 F. Supp. 1053, 1058 (D.N.H. 1989) (applying New Hampshire's three-year statute of limitations period), with Abraham v. District of Columbia, 338 F. Supp. 2d 113, 122 (D.D.C. 2004) (implementing statute of limitations periods applicable to actions seeking judicial review of administrative decisions, typically thirty days in length); King ex rel. King v. Floyd Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 228 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2000) (same); Powers v. Ind. Dep't of Educ., Div. of Special Educ., 61 F.3d 552, 558 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); Mayo v. Booker, 56 F. Supp. 2d 597, 598 (D. Md. 1999) (same); Birmingham ex rel. Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 17 F. Supp. 2d 859, 867 (W.D. Ark. 1998) (same), rev'd on other grounds, 220 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2000).

In Akinseye, this member of the Court addressed a substantially similar issue presented here and ultimately held that the three-year catch-all statute of limitations period under District of Columbia Code § 12-301(8) applied to an action to recover attorneys' fees under the IDEA. 193 F. Supp. 2d at 134 (citingZipperer, 111 F.3d at 847, as persuasive precedent for applying a longer statute of limitations period, while also considering King, 228 F.3d at 622; Powers, 61 F.3d at 552; Dep't of Educ. v. Carl D., 695 F.2d 1154, 1154 (9th Cir. 1983); andAmann v. Town of Stow, 991 F.2d 929, 929 (1st Cir. 1993), all which applied longer statute of limitations periods). The defendant contends that two recent District of Columbia Circuit opinions have since "superseded" the Akinseye decision. Def.'s Mem. at 11 n. 2. In Kaseman and Jester, the Circuit held that "the term `action' in the fee cap provision of the 2005 [District of Columbia A]ppropriations [A]ct encompasses both administrative proceedings and subsequent [attorneys'] fee requests brought in the district court by prevailing parties."Kaseman, 444 F.3d at 643; see also Jester, 474 F.3d at 821 (reiterating that an IDEA administrative action and ensuing litigation for attorneys' fees a plaintiff seeks after prevailing in that administrative action "comprise[s] the same action for the purposes of the IDEA and the Appropriations Act fee-cap"). Although both of these opinions do "not specifically address the applicable limitations period for IDEA [attorneys'] fee claims," Def.'s Mem. at 11, and instead analyze how a $4,000 cap on attorneys' fees pursuant to the District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub.L. No. 108-335 § 327, 118 Stat. 1322 (2004), applies to actions to recover attorneys' fees under the IDEA, they nonetheless require this Court to conclude that "an administrative hearing and ancillary fee litigation are one action." Jester, 474 F.3d at 821. However, despite these Circuit rulings, this Court cannot agree with the defendant that, as a result, the statute of limitations period for this action is the same 90-day limitations period applied to appeals of IDEA administrative rulings.

The defendant also references authorities outside of this circuit that have held that litigation for attorneys' fees under the IDEA is ancillary to the underlying administrative proceeding as further support for application of its proposed 90-day statute of limitations period. However, not much has changed in these other circuits' analysis of this issue since the Akinseye decision where, as noted above, this Court already surveyed and considered these authorities. The only notable development actually cuts against the defendant's argument. See Holmes, 234 F. Supp. 2d at 1158 n. 2 (distinguishing the earlier Ninth Circuit precedent in Carl D., which applied a shorter statute of limitations to substantive appeals of IDEA administrative proceedings, and holding that where "the federal action seeks only fees and costs (under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)) for prevailing at the administrative level, then [the] plaintiff has up to 2 years to seek the fees"). Moreover, in the defendant's attempt to display the "overwhelming majority of other jurisdictions" as being in its favor, the defendant only cites to cases that this Court previously took into account in Akinseye, Def.'s Mem. at 12-13 (citing only to decisions in the Sixth, Seventh, and First Circuits, as well as a District of Maryland decision). Given that this Court has already considered the rulings of other circuits and districts, these outside authorities do not further the defendant's argument any more so than they did when the Court issued Akinseye. In fact, in light of the distinction made by the District of Hawaii in Holmes subsequent to this Court's decision in Akinseye, if anything, authority from other jurisdictions favoring the defendant's position is actually less compelling now.

The first consideration, and the most compelling in this Court's view, is one of statutory construction. The plaintiff notes in her opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss that "the 90-day limitations period set forth in the IDEA specifies that it applies to appeals of [Hearing Officer Determinations]." Pl.'s Opp'n. at 3 (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)). Indeed, as the statutory language currently exists, the subsection allowing for attorneys' fees, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), is set entirely apart from the subsection allowing for a civil action to appeal IDEA administrative hearing determinations and the correlating 90-day statute of limitations period that applies to such appeals. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A)-(B). Quite rightly, the plaintiff argues that had Congress intended this same statute of limitations period to apply to actions to recover attorneys' fees after prevailing at the administrative hearing stage, "it would have so stated." Pl.'s Opp'n. at 3. Where a statute contains a clear and express reference to the applicability of a specific limitations period for one form of action, and no similar express limitations period exists for another form of action, it cannot be that this singular and yet distinctly separate limitations period simply applies to both actions. See Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983) ("`Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.'" (citation omitted)). Thus, to employ the 90-day limitations period to the plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees would defy the congressional intent of the statute as evidenced by the plain language of the statute itself.See Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129, 135 (1991) (noting that "[t]he `strong presumption' that the plain language of [a] statute expresses congressional intent is rebutted only in `rare and exceptional circumstances'" (quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430 (1981))). Accordingly, the statute of limitations period cannot be the same 90-day period that applies to appeals of IDEA administrative proceedings as the defendant asserts.

Second, as noted above, although federal courts may borrow a statute of limitations period from an analogous state cause of action where Congress has failed to include a limitations period for a given federal cause of action, the borrowed state limitations period cannot be "inconsistent with underlying federal policies."Spiegler, 866 F.2d at 463-64 (citing, among others, Wilson, 471 U.S. at 266-67. The purpose of the IDEA legislation is, among other things, "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education . . . designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living" and "to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B). This Court has noted that "[l]itigating claims under the IDEA is not a simple matter. Surely, parents and guardians are likely to fare much better if they wade into the complex sea of education law with the safety net of an attorney." Akinseye, 193 F. Supp. 2d at 144. Furthermore, this Court and others have opined that "a longer limitation[s] period will promote greater attorney representation of parents in IDEA proceedings," thereby better effectuating the policy goals of the IDEA by "enhanc[ing] the potential that disabled children will receive [a free] appropriate public education" while also ensuring greater protection of the rights of children with disabilities and their parents. Id. at 143 (citing generally Zipperer, 111 F.3d at 847).

Conversely, a shorter statute of limitations period would have a detrimental impact on the rights of the individuals the IDEA is designed to protect. According to the defendant, while the School System "endeavor[s] to act on invoices submitted within 60 days, fee requests may be deemed denied if [the School System] takes no action within 90 days of invoice submissions." Def.'s Mem. at 13. If, as this Court has stated, "the statutory time limit for an attorney fee claim under the IDEA . . . start[s] to run when the services provided by the attorney were completed and the parent or guardian qualified as the `prevailing party' under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)," Akinseye, 193 F. Supp. 2d at 145, then assuming that the prevailing party's attorney submits an invoice to the School System on the same day prevailing-party status in the underlying administrative proceeding was achieved, and assuming that the School System does in fact fulfill its endeavor to process this invoice in 60 days, the prevailing party and his or her attorney would not know that they had been adversely affected by either a complete or partial denial of their claim until after a substantial portion of the limitations period had expired, perhaps leaving only 30 days or less to file suit in federal court. This problem is compounded by two major factors: (1) it is highly unlikely, given the billing cycles of typical legal practitioners, that an invoice would be submitted on the same day the underlying administrative proceeding was completed; and (2) the unlikely prospect that the School System will fulfill its aspirational goal of completing its review of all invoices within 60 days, given the limited resources that so often plague governmental institutions. These practical realities cause the Court to conclude that it is more likely that decisions will often be rendered on the eve of a 90-day limitations period. Even worse, when fully denying prevailing parties' claims for attorneys' fees it is not inconceivable that the School System might often opt to simply allow the 90-day consideration period to expire, thereby only indirectly notifying these parties of its denial of their requests. In fact, the School System envisions that this will occur. See Def.'s Mem. at 13. So once again, even assuming that a prevailing party's attorney submits an invoice for payment to the School System on the same day the administrative hearing is completed, which is unlikely, the prevailing party would not know that his or her request had been denied, perhaps wrongly, until after a 90-day limitations period for filing a claim in federal court for these attorneys' fees had expired.

The School System itself contemplates this reality and accommodates prevailing parties accordingly. See Def.'s Mem. at 13 (allowing invoices from prevailing parties' attorneys to be submitted "within 45 days" of the issuance of the hearing decision in which the party prevailed).

As a result of such delays, individuals claiming prevailing-party status would be forced to either: (1) file suit for attorneys' fees in federal court before receiving a decision from the School System, or (2) wait for a decision and hope that it is favorable, knowing that awaiting a decision might bar a federal lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds. The former scenario would potentially consume judicial resources unnecessarily and cause parties to file possibly frivolous lawsuits, while the latter scenario would effectively eliminate prevailing parties' ability to recover their attorneys' fees. Accordingly, these potential consequences factor against adopting an abbreviated statute of limitations period.

The defendant too acknowledges these issues and puts forth a novel argument for tolling the statute of limitations to alleviate the practical problems posed by a shorter limitations period. See Def.'s Mem. at 13-14. However, the Court cannot agree with this position because there is no case law, in this Circuit or otherwise, to support such a general tolling of the statute of limitations. See Abraham, 338 F. Supp. 2d at 122 (tolling the statute of limitations for three years because the School System failed to notify the prevailing party of the short, 30-day limitations period and because the state of the law as to the applicable limitations period was unsettled); Powers, 61 F.3d at 560 (stating that "there are no grounds for equitable tolling [of the statute of limitations] when . . . there was no indication that the claimant had been misled as to the statute or was somehow unable to determine the facts necessary to maintain the action for attorneys' fees" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Lastly, although this Court and others have recognized that "expeditious resolution of matters regarding disabled students' education[al] needs" is required to fulfill the objectives of the IDEA, Akinseye, 193 F. Supp. 2d at 142 (citing Dell v. Bd. of Educ., 32 F.3d 1053, 1063-64 (7th Cir. 1994); Carl D., 695 F.2d at 1157), once the disabled child or the parent of the child prevails at the administrative proceeding level, the dispute concerning the needs of the child is effectively resolved. The only remaining issue at that point is one of fee shifting; a matter that, though ancillary to the underlying administrative hearing, does not demand an abbreviated statute of limitations as would a judicial appeal of a decision adverse to the child or child's parent. As the Eleventh Circuit observed in Zipperer, although

a short period of limitations for claims brought pursuant to section 1415(e)(2) [of the IDEA] "assures prompt resolution of disputes over education plans for [disabled] children" . . ., the resolution of claims for attorneys' fees is less urgent and, in reality, is more likely to be resolved by the attorneys' interest in prompt payment than by a short period of limitations.

111 F.3d at 851 (alteration and citations omitted).

In sum, although part of this Court's reasoning in Akinseye has been superseded by the District of Columbia Circuit Court's holdings in Kaseman and Jester, that does not compel the conclusion that the statute of limitations applicable to a prevailing party's claim for attorneys' fees under the IDEA is not the three-year "catch-all" provision of D.C. Code § 12-301(8) as the defendant argues. Thus, the Court again finds that it is "the statute most analogous to the claims that have been filed in this case," Akinseye, 193 F. Supp. 2d at 145, for two reasons. First, the plain language and statutory construction of the IDEA evidences a congressional intent to impose a different limitations period for judicial appeals of IDEA administrative hearing decisions. And second, the policy considerations underlying the enactment of the IDEA command a longer limitations period for prevailing parties' claims for attorneys' fees.

Here, the Hearing Officer's ruling was issued on November 28, 2006. Compl. ¶ 9. The plaintiff's complaint in this action was filed with the Court on November 27, 2009, one day within the three-year statute of limitations period. Thus, the plaintiff's complaint is not time-barred. Therefore, the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied, as is its motion for a more definite statement. Additionally, the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted is denied, as the plaintiff (1) asserts in her complaint that she was a prevailing party in the underlying IDEA administrative hearing and (2) the complaint was timely-filed in accordance with the three-year statute of limitations period applicable to the plaintiff's claim for attorneys' fees.

An Order consistent with the Court's ruling accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.