PN v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in PN v. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 04-36141, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of David R. Thompson, A. Wallace Tashima, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.
CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge:
P.N., plaintiff-appellant, filed an action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (”IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in resolving a conflict with the Seattle School District (”SSD”) over her child’s education. The conflict was resolved by a settlement agreement signed only by the parties. The district court held that P.N. was not a prevailing party, and thus, not entitled to attorneys’ fees under the IDEA because the settlement agreement lacked any judicial imprimatur. We affirm. We hold, consistent with our own precedent and decisions by our sister circuits, that (a) the definition of “prevailing party” set forth by the Supreme Court in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 600 (2001), applies to the IDEA’s attorneys’ fees provision, (b) the determination that a parent is a prevailing party requires that there be some judicial sanction of the settlement agreement, and (c) there is no judicial imprimatur of the settlement agreement in this case. I The IDEA seeks “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education . . .
Our opinion filed August 15, 2006, is amended to include the following at the end of footnote 7. We further note that 20 U.S.C. § 1415 was amended subsequent to the underlying events in this case. We have no occasion to consider whether these amendments alter the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys’ fees under the IDEA. . . .