K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified School District
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Carter, J.
*1293 ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES [95]
Before the Court is Plaintiff K.M.’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Oral arguments were heard on May 26, 2015. Having reviewed the papers and supporting exhibits, and considered the oral arguments, the Court rules as follows: the Motion is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds that a fee award of 50% of the lodestar for work done during the underlying administrative proceeding, 75% of the lodestar for work done at the district court through summary judgment, and 100% of the lodestar for work done on appeal and subsequently is appropriate given the limited success in this matter, as K.M. prevailed solely on her American with Disabilities Act and California Unruh Act claims, but not her claims for a Free and Appropriate Education (“FAPE”) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).
I. BACKGROUND
A. Underlying Factual and Procedural Background
The factual background is drawn from the Ninth Circuit’s Order in KM. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist. (“Bright ”), 725 F.3d 1088, 1092-94 (9th Cir.2013) cert. denied, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1493 , 188 L.Ed.2d 376 (2014) and cert. denied sub nom.…