VICTORIA HALL; RALPH HALL V. COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 21, No. 12-15523 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 14 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTORIA HALL; RALPH HALL, ) individually and on behalf of J.H. ) a minor, ) ) Plaintiffs - Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL ) DISTRICT NO. 21, ) ) Defendant - Appellee. ) ) No. 12-15523 D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00294-ROS MEMORANDUM* Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 6, 2013** San Francisco, California Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Victoria and Ralph Hall appeal the district court s order which awarded * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). them attorney s fees after they prevailed in their action against Coolidge Unified School District No. 21. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). We affirm. We have carefully reviewed the record and we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion1 when it determined the rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished 2 and then calculated the fee award based upon those rates.3 AFFIRMED. 1 See United States. v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261 62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 374 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C); see also Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 1547 n.11, 79 L. Ed. 2d 891 (1984); Christensen v. Stevedoring Servs. of Am., 557 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009); Shapiro, 374 F.3d at 865 66; Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir. 1997); Greater L.A. Council on Deafness v. Cmty. Television of S. Cal., 813 F.2d 217, 221 (9th Cir. 1987). 3 The Halls suggest that the State Bar of Arizona s, 2010 Economics of Law Practice in Arizona, upon which the district court relied, is inadmissible hearsay. However, that issue was not raised before the district court. We decline to consider it. See O Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007); Pfingston v. Ronan Eng g Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1003 04 (9th Cir. 2002). 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.