Aguirre

The question before us is one we have not previously addressed: Does the “degree of success” standard announced in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), apply to attorney’s fees awards under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. See id. § 1415(i)(3)(B). We hold that it does, and we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

In the IDEA, Congress found that it was “in the national interest that the Federal Government have a supporting role in assisting State and local efforts to educate children with disabilities” and “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (c)(6), (d)(1)(A) (2000 & Supp.2005). See generally Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley ex rel. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-84 , 102 S.Ct. 3034 , 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982) (discussing the predecessor to the IDEA, the Education of the Handicapped Act). States who elect to receive federal financial assistance must demonstrate that they have in effect “policies and procedures” to provide…

specially concurring:

I concur in Judge Bybee’s thorough and thoughtful opinion. I write separately to make clear my view that, although the district court may have erred by failing to apply the “degree of success” test, it did not abuse its discretion when it awarded Aguirre $21,104.24.

As discussed in the opinion, for a court to award attorney’s fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(3)(B), a parent (1) must be a “prevailing party” and (2) must seek “reasonable attorneys’' fees.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(3)(B)(I). Like my colleagues, I believe that Aguirre was a prevailing party in this case. Thus, the remaining issue is what constitutes “reasonable attorneys’ fees” in this case.

When applying the degree of success test, the Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff who prevails in only part of her claims may not be entitled to recover fees for her unsuccessful claims. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). Rather, as a general rule, “the level of a plaintiffs success is relevant to the amount of fees to be awarded.” Id. In this case, Aguirre prevailed on four of the twenty-seven issues she raised.

The school district contends that,…

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

In the IDEA, Congress found that it was “in the national interest that the Federal Government have a supporting role in assisting State and local efforts to educate children with dis- abilities” and “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(6), (d)(1)(A) (2000 & Supp. 2005). See gen- erally Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley ex rel. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-84 (1982) (discussing the predecessor to the IDEA, the Education of the Handicapped Act). States who elect to receive federal financial assistance must demonstrate that they have in effect “policies and procedures” to provide disabled children with a “free appropriate public education” through the creation of a tailored program known as an “individual- ized education program” or “IEP.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a), (a)(1), (a)(4); see Cal. Educ. Code § 56341 (2003 & Supp. 2005). The IEP is created by a team that includes the child’s parents, teacher, a special education teacher, a school repre- sentative and others. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B). The IDEA broadly requires participating states to…