Noyes

Noyes v. Grossmont Union High School District

Good Law
331 F. Supp. 2d 1233·2004 WL 1557273·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13240
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 29, 2004Civ. 03CV0905-LBLMCalifornia9,591 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lorenz, J.

ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lisa Noyes’ Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication, and Defendant Grossmont Union High School District’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court finds these motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

Plaintiff filed this action seeking attorney’s fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”), and now moves for an award of those fees. Defendant also requests summary judgment in its favor, arguing Plaintiff is not a “prevailing party” as defined by Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001). Defendant alternatively contends Plaintiff is not a “prevailing party” because Plaintiff obtained only de minimis results through the parties’ settlement agreement.

The Court finds that notwithstanding Buckhannon, Plaintiff must be deemed a prevailing party in light of Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation, 277 F.3d 1128 (9th…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.