Curtis K. By Delores K. v. Sioux City Community Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1995
• Docket Number: No. 94-4085 to 94-4091.,94-4085 to 94-4091.
• Citation: 895 F. Supp. 1197
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
• Parties: CURTIS K., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, DELORES K., and Delores K., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants. DAVID D., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, ZOE D., and Zoe D., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants. AMIE R., a Minor, by her Mother and Next Friend, DIANE D., and Diane D., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants. MICHAEL H., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, NANCY W., and Nancy W., on her own behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants. GEOFF P., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, LAURIE P., and LAURIE P., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants. LUCAS P., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, LAURIE P., and Laurie P., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants. FARON K., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, DELORES K., and Delores K., on her own behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

895 F. Supp. 1197

CURTIS K., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, DELORES K., and Delores K., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

DAVID D., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, ZOE D., and Zoe D., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

AMIE R., a Minor, by her Mother and Next Friend, DIANE D., and Diane D., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

MICHAEL H., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, NANCY W., and Nancy W., on her own behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

GEOFF P., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, LAURIE P., and LAURIE P., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

LUCAS P., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, LAURIE P., and Laurie P., on her Own Behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

FARON K., a Minor, by his Mother and Next Friend, DELORES K., and Delores K., on her own behalf, Plaintiff, v. SIOUX CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT and Western Hills Area Education Agency 12, Defendants.

Nos. 94-4085 to 94-4091.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

June 29, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Al Sturgeon, Sioux City, IA, for plaintiffs.

James C. Hanks of Klass, Hanks, Stoos, Stoik, Mugan & Villone, Sioux City, IA, for defendants Sioux City Community School Dist. and the Western Hills Area Educ. Agency, Area 12.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BENNETT, District Judge.

                                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................. 1202
                 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ..................................................... 1202
                III. FINDINGS OF FACT ................................................................... 1204
                     A. Undisputed Facts ................................................................ 1204
                     B. Disputed Facts .................................................................. 1205
                 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 1205
                     A. Purpose And Provisions Of The IDEA .............................................. 1205
                     B. Judicial Review Under The IDEA .................................................. 1206
                     C. Claims For Attorneys Fees Under The IDEA ........................................ 1206
                        1. Fee claims versus judicial review ............................................ 1208
                        2. Fee claims versus judicial review under the IDEA ............................. 1208
                     D. The Statute Of Limitations For IDEA Attorneys Fees Actions ...................... 1212
                        1. The method for selecting the proper statute of limitations ................... 1212
                        2. Prior decisions determining the applicable statute of limitations ............ 1213
                        3. The proper statute of limitations here ....................................... 1216
                           a. The parties' proffers ..................................................... 1216
                           b. Application of the Wilson analysis ........................................ 1217
                           c. The proper statute of limitations here .................................... 1220
                  V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 1221
                

The issue in these lawsuits for attorney fees filed on behalf of seven school age children with disabilities is more than simply a question of whether one attorney will get paid for services rendered, and instead raises serious repercussions for the vindication of the rights of disabled children to obtain an appropriate public education. The defendants' motions for summary judgment in these lawsuits are also of significance beyond mere disposition of these cases, because they present an issue of first impression in this circuit. That question is, what statute of limitations applies to an action for attorneys fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.? Congress has provided no answer, and the array of answers offered by other courts to consider the question, coupled with the lack of any controlling decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals or any persuasive decision from a district court of this circuit, compel this court's entry into the fray. The variety of judicial determinations of the statute of limitations applicable here is particularly disconcerting when the Supreme Court has said that "`few areas of the law stand in greater need of firmly defined, easily applied rules than does the subject of periods of limitations.'" Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (quoting Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 667, 103 S.Ct. 2611, 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 74 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). In the absence of a congressional statement making for the fervently desired clarity on the issue, however, the court must draw upon the analytical tools supplied by the Supreme Court to fill the gap.

Plaintiffs in these cases, seven disabled children and their parents, have filed actions to recover attorney fees and costs asserting that they are prevailing parties in administrative proceedings under the IDEA. Defendants, a community school district and an area education authority, have moved for summary judgment in each case on the ground that the plaintiffs' suits for fees are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which defendants assert is a 30-day limitations period "borrowed" from the judicial review provisions of the Iowa Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiffs counter that a longer statute of limitations is both appropriate and necessary in light of the policies behind the IDEA.

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The plaintiffs in each of the actions captioned above filed a complaint on October 5, 1994, seeking to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Plaintiffs are disabled children and their parents who prevailed in administrative proceedings in which they asserted that defendants, the Sioux City Community School District (the District) and the Western Hills Area Education Agency, Area 12 (the Agency), had improperly excluded each child from school or had denied the child due process in the formulation or administration of the child's individualized education program (IEP), or both, in violation of the IDEA. The administrative proceedings in each case terminated, either by settlement or by rendering of an administrative decision without further appeal between mid-October of 1992 and March of 1993. The decision or settlement in each case granted significant relief to each of the plaintiffs. In their complaints, the plaintiffs therefore seek recovery of attorney fees and costs as prevailing parties in the administrative proceedings pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B).

Defendants acknowledged and accepted service in each case, and, on November 7, 1994, answered each of the complaints. In each case, defendants asserted as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that the complaint was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On March 8, 1995, Chief Magistrate Judge John A. Jarvey entered a scheduling order in each case establishing a deadline of June 1, 1995, for dispositive motions. The District and the Agency filed motions for summary judgment in each case on June 1, 1995, asserting that each complaint is time-barred by application of the most analogous state statute of limitations, a thirty-day statute of limitations for judicial review found in the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, Iowa Code § 17A.19(3).

Plaintiffs resisted the motions for summary judgment on June 14, 1995, contending that the most appropriate state statute of limitations is a "catch-all," five-year limitations period found in Iowa Code § 614.1(4). Plaintiffs also suggest that this limitations period might be further extended by Iowa Code § 614.8, which extends any other applicable statute of limitations in favor of mentally ill persons "so that they have one year from and after the termination of such disability within which to commence said action." Iowa Code § 614.8.

The court held oral arguments on defendants' motions for summary judgment on June 27, 1995. Plaintiffs were represented by counsel Al Sturgeon of Sioux City, Iowa. Defendants were represented by counsel James C. Hanks of Klass, Hanks, Stoos, Stoik, Mugan & Villone, in Sioux City, Iowa. Both counsel ably argued their respective positions, and while the arguments were spirited, counsel were very responsive to the numerous questions posed to them by the court. The court finds this matter fully submitted, and therefore turns first to the standards applicable to disposition of the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes "that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and must be exercised with extreme care to prevent taking genuine issues of fact away from juries." Wabun-Inini v. Sessions, 900 F.2d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir.1990). On the other hand, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have authorized for nearly 60 years "motions for summary judgment upon proper showings of the lack of a genuine, triable issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2555, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Thus, "summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored...