Kletzelman

Kletzelman v. Capistrano Unified School District

Good Law
91 F.3d 68·1996 WL 408764
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 23, 1996No. 94-55438California1,600 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Scannlain, J.

ORDER

The memorandum disposition filed on November 15, 1995 is redesignated as an opinion authored by Judge O’Scannlain.

OPINION

We must determine whether a parent, who successfully seeks to have her disabled public school child placed in a special private school, is entitled to attorneys’ fees for her efforts under the circumstances of this case.

I

Ann Kletzelman appeals the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, denying her request for attorneys’ fees from the Capistrano Unified School District (“CUSD”) and the CUSD Board of Education in her action pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415 (e)(4)(B) (West Supp.1995). On appeal, Kletzelman contends that the district court erred in ruling that there was no dispute between Kletzelman and the CUSD and that Kletzelman was thus not a prevailing party entitled to fees and costs. Kletzelman also claims that the district court erred by denying her motion for a jury trial on the ground that the ten-day limit imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38 had expired. We discuss these two claims in turn.

II

The IDEA ‘“confers upon disabled students an enforceable substantive…

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.