Los Angeles County Office of Education v. C. M. , 550 F. App'x 387 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF No. 12-55298
EDUCATION,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-04702-CAS-
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - AGR
Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
C. M., Adult Student, AKA Crystal
Moriwaki,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: CANBY, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
1. The district court erred in denying C.M.’s request for attorney’s fees on
the ground that she was not a “prevailing party.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
A party prevails in this context when she “succeeds on any significant issue in
litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the
suit,” so long as that success is not “purely technical or de minimis.” Parents of
Student W v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3, 31 F.3d 1489, 1498 (9th Cir. 1994). C.M.
prevailed on a “significant issue” in both proceedings before the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH). At the first proceeding, the Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) held that the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) was
required to initiate C.M.’s placement in a Residential Treatment Center (RTC) by,
for example, arranging transportation, signing contracts, and providing initial
funding. At the second proceeding, the ALJ affirmed that holding and rejected
LACOE’s continued resistance to paying for C.M.’s placement. The ALJ further
held that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was responsible for
C.M.’s placement following her release from juvenile hall. The ALJ’s holding that
LAUSD, not LACOE, was required to pay for the RTC in the long term is
irrelevant to C.M.’s success regarding LACOE’s initial placement responsibility.
C.M. did not, however, prevail on any significant issue in the district court
proceeding. LACOE prevailed, and C.M. lost, on the only issue the court reached:
whether the ALJ correctly denied LACOE’s motion to join LAUSD as a party in
the OAH proceedings. C.M. should be awarded fees for both OAH proceedings,
Page 3 of 3
but the district court may take into account C.M.’s “degree of success” by reducing
or denying fees for the district court proceeding. See Aguirre v. Los Angeles
Unified Sch. Dist., 461 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2006).
2. C.M. also challenges the district court’s remand order on the merits.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating the two due
process proceedings and remanding them to the OAH, we affirm the remand order.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
No costs.