South Kingstown School Committee v. S.

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting the Magistrate Judge's 38 Report and Recommendations and granting in part Defendant's 32 Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Defendant's 36 Supplemental Motion for Attorneys' Fees: Defendant Joanna S. is awarded the sum of $21,396.88. So Ordered by Judge Mary M. Lisi on 4/27/2015. (Duhamel, John)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH KINGSTOWN
SCHOOL COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff
v.

C.A. No. 13-127-ML

JOANNA S., as PARENT OF
P.J.S,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. was brought by the Plaintiff, the
South Kingstown School Committee (the “School Committee”), seeking
to appeal the Administrative Decision of an Impartial Due Process
Hearing Officer (the “Hearing Officer”) pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §
1415 et seq. The Defendant, Joanna S., is the mother of P.J., a
disabled child for whom she sought, inter alia, private school
placement at public expense and eight new evaluations of her child.
Before any administrative proceedings related to her first due
process complaint began, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). The Settlement Agreement
provided that the School Committee would (1) pay for P.J.’s private
school placement; and (2) perform four evaluations prior to such
placement:

educational,

cognitive,

speech

and

language,

and

occupational therapy.
After P.J. was placed at the private school and had received
1

the four evaluations specified in the Settlement Agreement, Joanna
S. sought ten new evaluations. The School Committee demurred and
filed a due process complaint. In the course of the resulting
administrative proceedings, the Hearing Officer concluded that the
educational evaluation P.J. had received was not appropriate.1 The
Hearing

Officer

ordered

the

School

Committee

to

pay

for

an

additional occupational therapy evaluation and a psychoeducational
evaluation. At that time, Joanna S. sought attorneys’ fees of
$36,675.
The School Committee appealed the Hearing Officer’s Decision
to this Court, but it did not challenge the determination that the
educational evaluation was not appropriate. On cross-motions for
summary judgment by the parties, this Court granted the School
Committee’s

motion,

concluding

that the

mandated

occupational

therapy evaluation was not supported by the administrative record,
and that the psychoeducational evaluation was precluded by the
terms of the Settlement Agreement. South Kingstown School Committee
v. Joanna S., No. CA 13-127-ML, 2014 WL 197859 (D.R.I. Jan. 14,
2014). Although Joanna S. had previously sought attorneys’ fees as
a prevailing party in the administrative proceedings, neither party
addressed

the

matter

in

the

course

of

the

summary

judgment

1

It appeared from the record of the case that P.J. reacted very
negatively to being evaluated and that the educational evaluation
had to be discontinued because it was so stressful on him.
2

proceedings2.
Joanna S. appealed this Court’s decision to the First Circuit
Court of Appeals, which affirmed that (1) the occupational therapy
evaluation performed by the School Committee was “appropriate;” and
(2) the Settlement relieved the School Committee from funding the
requested independent psychoeducational evaluation. South Kingstown
School Committee v. Joanna S., 773 F.3d 344, 352, 355 (1st Cir.
2014). In addition, the First Circuit remanded the case to this
Court

for

consideration

whether

Joanna

S.

was

entitled

to

attorneys’ fees based on her success at the administrative level
“in securing yet a third evaluation, which the School Committee did
not challenge in District Court and thus does not contest here.”
Id. at 346.
This matter is now before the Court on the objection (Dkt. No.
39) by Joanna S. to a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)(Dkt. No.
38) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan
on

March

30,

2015,

in

connection

with

Joanna’s

request

for

attorneys’ fees incurred in all three levels of proceedings in the
amount of $122,781.50 (Dkt. Nos. 32, 36). The Court has reviewed
the R&R and Joanna S.’s objections thereto. In her R&R, the
Magistrate

Judge

recommends

that

the

Defendant’s

motion

for

2

In the memorandum supporting her summary judgment motion,
Joanna S. requested that the Court order “upon application, for
reimbursement of attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party.” Def.’s
Mem. at 21 (Dkt. No. 13-1).
3

attorneys’ fees be granted, albeit at a reduced rate, to reimburse
her for fees incurred solely in connection with the issue on which
she prevailed at the administrative level, and which remained
unchallenged by the School Committee thereafter.
Joanna S. has asserted no challenge to the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that she be awarded $18,337.50 for attorney’s fees
incurred at the administrative level, which constitutes half the
amount she initially requested, reflecting that she prevailed only
in part. However, Joanna S. takes objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion that Joanna S.’s efforts in this Court and in
the

subsequent

appeal

to

the

First

Circuit

were

entirely

unsuccessful and that, apart from $3,059.39 related to preparation
of the fee application, she is not entitled to reimbursement of
attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party.3
This Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning.
Joanna S. prevailed on one discrete issue at the administrative
level, which remained uncontested by the School Committee in
proceedings before this Court and on appeal to the First Circuit.
With respect to all other claims, she was not a prevailing party
and no attorneys’ fees are due her.
Accordingly, the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge

Sullivan

are

accepted

pursuant

to

Title

28

U.S.C.

§

3

The School Committee elected not to file a response to the
R&R.
4

636(b)(1). The Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees is GRANTED,
in part. Joanna S. is awarded the sum of $21,396.88.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mary M. Lisi
Mary M. Lisi
United States District Judge
April 27, 2015

5