R.S. v. Bd. of Dirs. of Woods Charter Sch. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:16-cv-119 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | R.S., by and through his father, RONALD E. SOLTES, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WOODS CHARTER SCHOOL COMPANY, WOODS CHARTER SCHOOL, and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, Defendants. |
This is an action brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Before the court are two motions for attorneys' fees filed by Plaintiff R.S., by and through his father Ronald Soltes (Doc. 98), and by movants J. Denton Adams and Steven Wyner (Doc. 101), as a result of this court's previous grant of R.S.'s motion for summary judgment against Defendants Board of Directors of Woods Charter School Company and the Woods Charter School (collectively "WCS").1 For the reasons set forth below, the motions will be granted inpart.
The history of this litigation is set out in the court's prior opinion granting R.S.'s motion for summary judgment and will be recounted here only as relevant to the present motions. See R.S. v. Bd. of Directors of Woods Charter Sch. Co., No. 1:16-CV-119, 2019 WL 1025930 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 4, 2019), aff'd sub nom. R.S. By & through Soltes v. Bd. of Directors of Woods Charter Sch. Co., 806 F. App'x 229 (4th Cir. 2020).
R.S. was born in 2000 and diagnosed with Non-Verbal Learning Disability. For the 2012-2013 school year, R.S. attended school in the Pocono Mountain School District ("PMSD") in Pennsylvania, which developed an individualized education program ("IEP") for him. That IEP called for 21 accommodations, including speech and language services, occupational therapy, adapted physical education, and assistive technology. On August 20, 2013, R.S. enrolled as an eighth grader at WCS. He started receiving speech and language services and occupational therapy from WCS in early September.
On September 13, WCS's Special Education Director Lawrence Smiley met with R.S.'s teachers to discuss the accommodations set out in R.S.'s PMSD IEP. On September 19, Smiley and WCS's principal, Cotton Bryan, held an informal meeting with R.S.'s parents to discuss the parents' concerns and the status of effortsto develop a new IEP for R.S. By October 5, R.S.'s parents had begun expressing concerns about R.S.'s academic progress and questioning WCS's provision of accommodations, and communication between the school and parents had become "strained."
Although WCS had proposed earlier IEP meetings, WCS did not hold its first formal IEP meeting for R.S. until October 28. A second IEP meeting -- this time via telephone -- was scheduled for November 1 with WCS staff; R.S.'s father, Ronald Soltes; and a facilitator from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction ("DPI"). R.S.'s father did not answer the phone at the appointed time, and the IEP team held the November 1 meeting without him. During this meeting, WCS finalized a draft IEP, which Smiley sent to R.S.'s parents.
Smiley scheduled a third IEP meeting for November 12 and invited R.S.'s parents. By this time R.S.'s parents had retained legal counsel. R.S.'s parents never confirmed their attendance at the November 12 IEP meeting, and the meeting was never held.
On December 2, R.S. had a panic attack at home and fell down a set of stairs, injuring himself. His parents did not send him back to WCS following his fall, and December 2 proved to be his last day of attendance. The parents received letters from the principal, Bryan, in December 2013 and January 2014 regarding R.S.'s accumulation of unexcused absences. Through the end of February 2014, WCS's special education teacher Katy Hankinsemailed R.S.'s homework and assignments to his parents; Smiley directed her to cease this practice on February 28. On March 6, 2014 Bryan sent R.S.'s parents a letter informing them that WCS was withdrawing R.S. from enrollment.
Under the IDEA, "all states receiving federal funds for education [are required] to provide disabled schoolchildren with a 'free appropriate public education' ('FAPE')." Cnty. Sch. Bd. of Henrico Cty. v. Z.P. ex rel. R.P., 399 F.3d 298, 300 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A)). If a child's parents have grievances with respect to a local education agency's provision of a FAPE, they are entitled to file a complaint and receive "an impartial due process hearing" conducted by a state officer "as determined by State law or by the State educational agency." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f). North Carolina has a two-tiered structure for due process hearings. The initial due process proceedings are held by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") appointed by the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH"). E.L. ex rel. Lorsson v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro Bd. of Educ., 773 F.3d 509, 513 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-109.6). The parties can then appeal the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law to a state review officer ("SRO") appointed by the North Carolina State Board of Education ("BOE"), who makes an independent decision on the written record. Id. (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-109.9). Once this administrativereview process has been exhausted, dissatisfied parties may bring a civil action in federal district court within 90 days of the final state administrative decision. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2).
On October 31, 2014, R.S., by and through his parents, initiated a due process proceeding against WCS, BOE, and DPI, contending that WCS had denied him a FAPE during the 2013-2014 school year. OAH appointed the Honorable Sidney S. Eagles, Jr. as the ALJ for the matter. On May 28, 2015, the ALJ dismissed BOE and DPI as respondents. In June and July -- after multiple continuations -- the ALJ held a 14-day hearing in which a total of 19 witnesses were called and 153 exhibits were presented. (See Doc. 55-1.) On October 22, the ALJ issued a 61-page final decision finding that WCS denied R.S. a FAPE on numerous grounds and granting him extensive compensatory education. WCS timely appealed, and the BOE appointed the Honorable Joe D. Walters as SRO for the appeal. The SRO received written arguments from the parties on December 30, 2015, and issued a 34-page decision on January 14, 2016, rejecting the ALJ's findings of fact, reversing most (but not all) of the ALJ's conclusions of law, and granting R.S. reduced compensatory education on the basis of a single denial of FAPE in that WCS failed to timely develop a North Carolina IEP for R.S.
On February 16, 2016, R.S. filed his complaint in this court. (Doc. 1.) WCS filed an answer and counterclaim. (Doc. 8.) OnJanuary 24, 2017, the Magistrate Judge denied R.S.'s request for additional discovery. (Doc. 19.) On March 24, R.S. moved to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 23.) During this time the parties also attempted mediation, but R.S.'s counsel failed to be present for the mediation within the time allowed. (Doc. 26.) R.S.'s attorneys subsequently moved to withdraw from their representation of R.S. (Docs. 27; 28), and the Magistrate Judge granted the requests on June 2, 2017. R.S. filed an amended complaint (Doc. 32) through new counsel on August 31, 2017, while simultaneously moving for leave to file a second amended complaint (Doc. 31). On January 9, 2018, the court -- after noting that "[t]his case has been unnecessarily plagued by delay" -- denied R.S.'s motion to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 36 at 1.) The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on April 23, 2018. (Docs. 50; 52.)
In March 2019, this court granted R.S.'s motion for summary judgment and denied WCS's motion for summary judgment. Woods Charter Sch., 2019 WL 1025930, at *1. In April 2019, R.S., proceeding pro se, appealed to the Fourth Circuit. (Doc. 68.) WCS moved to stay all proceedings regarding attorneys' fees pending the resolution of the appeal (Doc. 74), which motion this court granted (Doc. 79). On May 27, 2020 the Fourth Circuit affirmed this court. R.S. By & through Soltes, 806 F. App'x at 230. The mandate issued on July 1, 2020, after the Fourth Circuit deniedR.S.'s pro se petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. (Doc. 84.)
Both sets of R.S.'s attorneys have now moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The first motion is filed by Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, Kelli Espaillat and Keith Howard. (Doc. 98.) Plaintiff requests reimbursement from July 27, 2017, until August 28, 2020 -- a total of $59, 575 in attorneys' fees for Espaillat and $66,835 in attorneys' fees for Howard -- plus $89,899.20 in expenses and costs.2 (Doc. 99.) In support, they attach affidavits from both Espaillat and Howard (Doc. 99-1; declarations from Stacey Gahagan and Ann Paradis, attorneys licensed to practice in North Carolina and who focus on education matters (Doc. 99-2); and time and expense records (Docs. 99-3, 99-4).
The second motion is filed by J. Denton Adams and Steven Wyner, Plaintiff's initial attorneys for this matter. (Doc. 101.) Adams and Wyner request reimbursement from October 28, 2013,3 untilAugust 29, 2020 -- a total of $226,518 in attorneys' fees for Adams and $581,403 in attorneys' fees for Wyner -- plus $19,602.64 in expenses and costs.4 In support, they attach affidavits from themselves, which include time and expense records (Docs. 102; 103); a declaration from Irving Joyner, an attorney licensed to practice in North Carolina (Doc. 104); an affidavit from Peter Wright, an attorney licensed to practice in Virginia (Doc. 105); and multiple cases.
The motions are fully briefed and ready for decision.
The court starts by addressing a threshold issue: standing. As this court previously noted, a motion for attorneys' fees under the IDEA is not unusual. What is atypical in this case is that there are two such motions -- one filed by Plaintiff, by and through his current counsel, Espaillat and Howard, and a second filed by Plaintiff's former counsel, Adams and Wyner.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial