Evans

Evans v. Grossmont Union High School District

Good Law
197 F. App'x 648
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 15, 2006Nos. 04-56341, 04-56360California292 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

*649 MEMORANDUM *

Jean Evans and Lisa Noyes, plaintiffsappellees, sought special education benefits for their respective children from Grossmont Union High School District (“Grossmont”), defendant-appellant, under the Individual with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. Plaintiffs and Grossmont agreed to certain benefits for plaintiffs’ respective children in two separate agreements. When Grossmont declined thereafter to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, plaintiffs filed separate actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court awarded summary judgments to plaintiffs holding that each plaintiff was a prevailing party and entitled to attorneys’ fees under 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(3)(B). Grossmont filed timely appeals from the district court’s awards of attorneys’ fees.

In our opinion in P.N. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, No. 04-36141, which was heard in tandem with these appeals, we hold that a parent who achieves a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties through a settlement agreement is not a prevailing party as that term is used in 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (i)(3)(B), and hence is not eligible for…

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.