Joseph Park, by and Through His Guardian Ad Litem, Kyung Hee Park Kyung Hee Park v. Anaheim Union High School District Greater Anaheim Selpa
Opinion
Opinion
464 F.3d 1025 Joseph PARK, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Kyung Hee PARK; Kyung Hee Park, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; Greater Anaheim Selpa, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-55569. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted December 7, 2005. Filed September 28, 2006. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Benjamin Y. Kim, Torrance, California; Paula D. Pearlman and Shawna L. Parks, Western Law Center for Disability Rights, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Jonathan J. Mott, Parker & Covert LLP, Tustin, CA, for the defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-02222-DSF. Before ROBERT R. BEEZER, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND OPINION PER CURIAM. ORDER 1 The panel has voted to GRANT appellant's petition for rehearing and to REJECT the suggestion for rehearing en banc. 2 The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the…
lead Opinion
ORDER AND OPINION
ORDER
The panel has voted to GRANT appellant’s petition for rehearing and to REJECT the suggestion for rehearing en banc.
The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for rehearing is granted and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
The opinion and dissent, filed on April 17, 2006, are hereby VACATED and REPLACED by the per curiam opinion and concurrence filed on September 28, 2006.
No subsequent petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc shall be filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
OPINION
Joseph Park (“Joseph”) and his mother, Kyung Hee Park, bring this action against the Anaheim Union High School District (“District”) and the Greater Anaheim Special Education Local Plan Area. The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to comply with procedural and substantive requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 1 The Parks expressly challenge the award of compensatory services and the denial of attorney’s fees. The district court affirmed the decisions of the…
concurrence Opinion
Beezer, J.
concurring:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides that “[i]n any proceeding brought under this section, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents of a child with a disability who is the prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(3)(B). 1 In accordance with the opinion of the court, I emphasize that “[i]t remains for the district court to determine what fee is ‘reasonable.’ ” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (emphasis added); see also Wilcox v. City of Reno, 42 F.3d 550, 554 (9th Cir.1994) (“Farrar [v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 , 113 S.Ct. 566 , 121 L.Ed.2d 494 (1992)] teaches that district courts, in the exercise of their discretion, should consider the extent of success in calculating a fee award.”)
Prevailing party status does not guarantee the receipt of attorney’s fees. The district court first “considers] the amount and nature of damages awarded.” Farrar, 506 U.S. at 115 , 113 S.Ct. 566 . “[T]he most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained])] ... the amount of damages awarded as compared to the…