C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., No. 12-57315 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseA panel of the Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion in this dispute regarding attorney’s fees. In the amended opinion, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Capristrano Unified School District as the prevailing defendant in an action brought by the mother of a special education student alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel (1) agreed with the district court that the ADA and section 1983 claims were frivolous and affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs for representation relating to those claims; and (2) disagreed with the district court that the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims were frivolous and/or brought for an improper purpose and reversed the district court to the extent that it awarded attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation of those claims. The cause was remanded. The panel also filed an order amending the opinion, denying a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc, and directing the mandate to issue forthwith.
Court Description: Attorney’s Fees. The panel filed (1) an amended opinion and (2) an order amending the opinion, denying a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc, and directing the mandate to issue forthwith. In the amended opinion, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Capistrano Unified School District as the prevailing defendant in an action alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The panel agreed with the district court that the ADA and § 1983 claims were frivolous, and affirmed the district court to the extent it awarded attorney’s fees and costs for representation relating to those claims. The panel concluded that the claims lacked any legal foundation, and the result was obvious. The panel also concluded that the claims were not brought for an improper purpose, which would have allowed the school district to recover fees from the plaintiff parent as well as from her attorneys. The panel disagreed with the district court that the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims were frivolous and/or brought for an improper purpose, and reversed the district court to the C.W. V. CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCH. DIST. 3 extent it awarded attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation of those claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). The panel remanded the case to the district court with specific instructions to determine which fees were attributable solely to litigating the frivolous ADA and § 1983 claims. Judge Reinhardt concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority that the claims under the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act were not frivolous and that none of the claims was brought for an improper purpose. Disagreeing with the majority, Judge Reinhardt wrote that the ADA and § 1983 claims, which were based on the same facts as the Rehabilitation Act claim, were not frivolous.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 2, 2015.
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.