FindLaw: Laws: Cases and Codes: 9TH CIRCUIT COURT Opinions
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9935733.html
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
LUCHT v MOLALLA RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT
9935733
DALE LUCHT and TERRY LUCHT,
No. 99-35733
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
D.C. No.
v.
CV-98-01375-ST
MOLALLA RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OPINION
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
July 11, 2000--Portland, Oregon
OPINION
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs Dale and Terry Lucht have an autistic son who lives within the area served by Defendant, the Molalla River School District. Plaintiffs' son is entitled to special-education benefits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. SS 1400-1490. After making several informal complaints to Defendant regarding their son's educational program, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the Oregon Department of Education (Department) pursuant to Oregon's Complaint Resolution Procedure (CRP), provided by Oregon Administrative Rule 581-001-0010 (recodified at 581-015-0054). In that complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant had committed several violations of the IDEA in the course of educating their son.
The Department investigated Plaintiffs' complaint and concluded that Defendant had violated several provisions of the IDEA. The Department ordered Defendant to convene an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting to address the errors that it had identified. As instructed, Defendant held several IEP meetings to formulate a new IEP for Plaintiffs' son. Plaintiffs attended the IEP meetings and, in at least three of those meetings, were represented by a lawyer. The IEP meetings resulted in the formulation and adoption of a revised IEP for Plaintiffs' son, which the parties agree complies with the IDEA.
Plaintiffs then brought this action in federal district court, seeking to recover the attorney fees that they had incurred in the Department-ordered IEP meetings attended by their lawyer. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted Plaintiffs' request for attorney fees. Defendant appeals from the district court's decision, asserting that the IDEA does not allow Plaintiffs to recover their attorney fees for their lawyer's attendance at the IEP meetings.1 We affirm.
