Michael Wofford v. North Little Rock School Dist, No. 19-1730 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Stras, Wollman and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Individuals with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff was not a prevailing party under the Act because he removed the student from the district, thereby precluding implementation of the relief ordered by the hearing officer; since he was not the prevailing party, the district court correctly determined plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys' fees.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1730 ___________________________ Michael Wofford lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. North Little Rock School District lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: December 17, 2019 Filed: December 20, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before STRAS, WOLLMAN, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Wofford, parent of J.W., appeals the district court’s1 adverse judgment in his action seeking attorneys’ fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Act (IDEA). Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that Wofford was not a prevailing party entitled to fees. See Birmingham v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 298 F.3d 731, 734 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review); Borengasser v. Ark. State Bd. of Educ., 996 F.2d 196, 200 (8th Cir. 1993) (to succeed in action seeking attorneys’ fees under IDEA, plaintiff must be prevailing party). Specifically, as the relief ordered by the hearing officer required Wofford’s action, which he did not take before moving J.W. out of the district and precluding implementation of the relief, Wofford cannot be considered a prevailing party. See Drennan v. Pulaski Cty. Special Sch. Dist., 458 F.3d 755, 757 (8th Cir. 2006) (parent who succeeded on IDEA claim at administrative level was not prevailing party, because ordered relief required parent to provide records to school, but parent instead moved child to another district, and relief was not implemented). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
