Appendix A: 1995 U.S. Dept. of Education Letter to Copenhaver (Page 2 of 2)
core of facts, this Court considers the level of success obtained. See, McCown , 550 F.3d at 923. "The reasonableness of the fee is determined primarily by reference to the level of success achieved by the plaintiff." Id . at 922 (citing Hensley , 461 U.S. at 436). In its review of this motion, this Court must consider "the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the results obtained." Hensley , 461 U.S. at 437. In the compliance complaint and resulting order on Student's motion for reconsideration, Student's "victory clearly fell short of his goal; therefore, it is unreasonable to grant his attorneys more than a comparable portion of the fees and costs requested." McCown , 550 F.3d at 925. Though this Court "need not be so mechanical as to divide the amount of fees and costs requested by the number of claims . . . the district court should take into account [Student's] limited success when determining a reasonable award." Id . Here, the Court finds that a reasonable award based on Student's limited success is 50% of the total fees and costs. Accordingly, this Court awards Student an award of $2,791.27 in attorneys' fees and costs for his partially-successful compliance complaint.
Student's first cause of action against TCOE
*11 The parties contemplated that Student's claims would be resolved on motion for summary judgment. While Student and California DOE moved for summary judgment, TCOE failed to move for summary judgment on its behalf. TCOE's inexplicable failure to abide by the February 25, 2009 Scheduling Order has placed the posture of this case in a unique procedural position. In his first cause of action, against TCOE, Student claims that TCOE failed to provide Student's complete "education record" in violation of federal and state law by failing to provide all emails regarding Student and destroying them without parental notification or consent in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 300.624. Though this Court denies Student's summary judgment motion on Student's first cause of action, this Court cannot enter judgement in TCOE's favor without an outstanding request to do so. For the reasons stated herein, this Court upheld California DOE's Compliance Compliant Report decision to find that TCOE was not required to provide Student with emails that TCOE maintained and Student provided no evidence that TCOE destroyed education records without parental notification or content. This Court's conclusions regarding Student's second cause of action against California DOE necessarily affect Student's first cause of action against TCOE. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to enter summary judgment against Student on his first cause of action against TCOE. See Celotex Corp. , 477 U.S. at 326 ("[D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence."). In its conclusion and order below, this Court shall allow Student an opportunity to oppose this Court's entry of summary judgment against him on his first cause of action against TCOE.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed above, this Court:
1. DENIES Student's summary judgment motion on his first claim against TCOE and second claim against California DOE;
BP 2003 – Student Records
Page 25
Desert Mountain Special Education Local Plan Area (DMSELPA) (rev. 04/14)
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator