Appendix A: 1995 U.S. Dept. of Education Letter to Copenhaver (Page 2 of 2)
946 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hensley , 461 U.S. 424, 434). As set forth above, Student's attorneys expended a total of 29.1 hours to litigate the compliance complaint. TCOE does not set forth any serious arguments to contend that the hours expended are excessive, redundant or unnecessary. Accordingly, this Court finds that 29.1 total hours is a reasonable amount of hours to prosecute the compliance complaint.
Lodestar Adjustment
Pursuant to the statute, this Court may not increase the attorneys' fee award that is calculated according to the lodestar. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C) ("No bonus or multiplier may be used in calculating the fees awarded under this subsection). This Court has discretion, however, to adjust the lodestar calculation downward. The "most critical factor" in determining the reasonableness of a fee award under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) "is the degree of success obtained." Linda T. V. Rice Lake Area Sch. Dist. , 417 F.3d 704, 708 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436 (1983)). Parents of a disabled child will be awarded only such attorneys fees as pertained to the successful portion of the petition. Bernardsville Bd. of Educ. v. J.H. , 42 F.3d 149, 160-61 (3rd Cir. 1994). If "a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours expended on litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount." Hensely , 461 U.S. at 436; see also, Aguirre v. L.A. Uni. Sch. Dist. , 461 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2006) (ruling that Hensely degree-of-success standard applies to IDEA cases). "A reduced award is appropriate if the relief, however significant, is limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as a whole ." Hensley , 416 U.S. at 440. 10* As set forth above, Student was successful in one of the two counts asserted against TCOE. California DOE found TCOE out of compliance with California Code of Education section 56504, which provides parents of students with disabilities the "right and opportunity to examine all school records of [their] child and to receive copies . . . within five business days after the request is made by the parent, either orally or in writing." As a public education agency, TCOE "must comply with a request for school records without delay . . . and in no case more than five business days after the request is made orally or in writing." Cal. Educ. Code section 56504. Student was unsuccessful on the bulk of his arguments raised in the February 6, 2008 compliance complaint. Student's compliance complaint alleged two causes of action against TCOE: (1) failure to provide a full and complete copy of all emails concerning or personally identifying Student pursuant to its obligation under California Code of Education § 56504; and (2) unlawful destruction of Student's records without parental notification or consent in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.624(a) when it unilaterally "purged" original electronic files. In his first cause of action, Student argued that TCOE failed to provide all emails that personally identified Student. California DOE found that TCOE was under no obligation to provide all emails — only those that were "educational records" because they were "maintained." California DOE's position on this matter led to its decision that TCOE was in compliance on Student's second cause of action; namely, that TCOE was under no obligation to notify Student's parents prior to purging emails that were not part of Student's file, because they were not educational records. Student argues that he should recover the full amount of his attorneys' fees, because the issues arose out of a common core of facts. As set forth above, however, the Court does not consider whether the claims arose out of a common core of facts only. When claims arise out of a common
BP 2003 – Student Records
Page 24
Desert Mountain Special Education Local Plan Area (DMSELPA) (rev. 04/14)
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator