A. H. v. S Orange Maplewood , 153 F. App'x 863 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-7-2005
A. H. v. S Orange Maplewood
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-4103
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"A. H. v. S Orange Maplewood" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 255.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/255
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 03-4103
________________
A.H., Individually and o/b/o C.H.C.,
Appellants
v.
SOUTH ORANGE MAPLEWOOD BOARD OF EDUCATION
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-03617)
District Judge: Honorable Jose L. Linares
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 26, 2005
Before: ROTH, MCKEE AND ALDISERT, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: November 7, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant A.H.1 appeals from the order of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey dismissing her action for fees and related costs pursuant to
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. For
the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
The proceedings below were initiated by a complaint filed by Tracée Edmondson,
M.B.A., identified in the complaint and supporting documents as the “consultant” and
“consultant and advocate” for A.H., proceeding individually and on behalf of her
daughter C.H.C. According to the complaint and supporting affidavits, C.H.C. has a
learning disability and is eligible under the IDEA for special education services from the
South Orange Maplewood (New Jersey) schools. A.H. retained Edmondson, a special
education consultant and president/founder of Total Envolvement consulting firm, who
successfully represented A.H. and C.H.C. in pursuing educational remedies in a due
process hearing before New Jersey’s Office of Administrative Law. On behalf of A.H.
and C.H.C., Edmondson filed this action pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415, seeking an award
of reasonable fees and related costs incurred in representing them in the administrative
proceeding, as well as fees and costs incurred in bringing the action. Edmondson
attached an affidavit and a list of tasks performed, indicating that she spent 3,402 hours
on the matter. Her fees, calculated at $350.00 per hour, totaled $1,190,700.00.
1
Appellant signs her name to the pleadings on appeal, but she is known as “A.H.” in
the district court caption, as the parent of a child-plaintiff.
2
The district court denied relief, noting the plaintiffs’ failure to provide an affidavit
of services limited to the representation of the plaintiffs before the Office of
Administrative Law. A.H., now proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under the IDEA, a “prevailing
party” may be awarded “reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents or
guardian of a child or youth” with a disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). Generally, we
review a decision to grant or deny a request for fees for an abuse of discretion, but we
review the district court’s choice, interpretation, and application of the law to the facts in
plenary fashion. See Holmes v. Millcreek Township Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 583, 589 (3d
Cir. 2000). We are free to affirm the district court’s judgment on any basis supported by
the record. Fairview Township v. EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985).
At the outset, we emphasize that actions in federal court must be pleaded and
pursued either by the parties personally, or by an attorney. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Thus, the
district court’s local procedural rules provide, generally, that persons admitted to practice
in that court are attorneys. D.N.J. L. Civ. R. 101.1. Also, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure requires that documents filed with the district court are to be signed by
counsel, or signed by the party if the party is not represented by counsel; unsigned
documents are subject to being stricken. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Each paper is to include
the signer’s address and telephone number. Id.In this case, we observe from the record that A.H. did not sign the complaint and
3
did not pursue the action before the district court on her own behalf. Rather, Edmondson
prepared and signed the complaint and documents submitted in support thereof and did so
as A.H.’s representative. Indeed, the document titled “Notice of Motion for Fees and
Expenses” specifically states that “the undersigned, Total Envolvement, consultant and
advocate for Plaintiffs, A.H., individually and on behalf of her daughter, C.H.C., shall
move before the Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. . . for entry of an Order awarding fees and expenses . . . .” (District Court
Document #2.) Moreover, the address and telephone number provided on the documents
is that of Edmondson’s consulting firm, Total Envolvement. However, it is apparent that
Edmondson was not an attorney at the time she filed the action. She identifies herself in
her filings as a consultant, and her résumé (submitted in support of the fee request) does
not reflect that she ever attended law school.2 The fact that A.H. now proceeds pro se on
appeal does not cure the unauthorized filings in district court. Thus, we will affirm the
district court’s dismissal of the complaint. We clarify that the dismissal is without
prejudice to a properly-filed action for fees that A.H. might wish to pursue. We express
no opinion as to the merits of any such action.
2
We note that, in a similar case filed by Edmondson four months prior to the one sub
judice, the district court found that Edmondson was not authorized to file pleadings in the
district court as a non-party and a non-attorney, and concluded that Edmondson’s filings
constituted the unauthorized practice of law. Neither the factual findings nor the legal
conclusions were challenged on appeal. E.R. v. Vineland Bd. Of Educ., No. 03-1121
(D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654; D.N.J. Civ. R. 101.1; Arons v. New
Jersey State Bd. Of Educ., 842 F.2d 58 (3d Cir. 1988)).
4
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the district court’s order. Appellant’s
motion to expedite the appeal is denied.
5