Shanahan v. Bd. of Educ. of Jamesville-Dewitt

• Decision Date: 21 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-CV-191(FJS)(GJD).,95-CV-191(FJS)(GJD).
• Citation: 953 F.Supp. 440
• Parties: Deborah SHANAHAN and Paul Shanahan, on behalf of themselves and their daughter Arielle Shanahan, Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE JAMESVILLE-DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

953 F.Supp. 440

Deborah SHANAHAN and Paul Shanahan, on behalf of themselves and their daughter Arielle Shanahan, Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE JAMESVILLE-DEWITT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.

No. 95-CV-191(FJS)(GJD).

United States District Court, N.D. New York.

January 21, 1997.

O'Hara & O'Connell, P.C., Syracuse, NY, for Plaintiffs; Danny Louis Mevic, of counsel.

Bond, Schoeneck & King, L.L.P., Syracuse, NY, for Defendant; Patrick J. Rao, of counsel.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

SCULLIN, District Judge.

Introduction

This is an action for attorney's fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B). Presently before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. The Defendant argues that this action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and in the alternative, that the Plaintiffs are not "prevailing parties" within the meaning of § 1415(e)(4)(B). Plaintiffs argue that their claim is not time-barred, and that they are "prevailing parties" under the IDEA as a matter of law.

Factual Background

The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Arielle Shanahan is a student enrolled in the Jamesville-Dewitt Central School District ("District"). In 1985, Arielle was identified as learning disabled and emotionally disturbed, and began receiving special education services from the District. The most important of these services is the development and implementation of Individualized Education Plans ("IEPs") pursuant to the IDEA and applicable state and federal regulations.

On September 24, 1992, the District's Committee on Special Education ("CSE") met to assess Arielle's academic progress and develop Arielle's IEP for the 1992-1993 academic year. At that meeting Arielle's parents recommended that she be placed in a residential educational facility. The CSE disagreed, and instead recommended that Arielle receive (1) resource room assistance six times per week, (2) outside counseling twice per week, (3) in-school counseling once per week, (4) family therapy once per week, and (5) consultation with a psychologist once per week. The Defendant Board of Education subsequently adopted the CSE's recommended 1992-93 IEP.

The District began scheduling CSE meetings to develop IEPs for the 1993-1994 academic year ("annual reviews") in or about December of 1992. In response to an inquiry by Mrs. Shanahan, the District's Director of Pupil Personnel Services, Cheryl A. Saidel, sent Mrs. Shanahan a letter dated January 5, 1992, in which she informed Mrs. Shanahan that the District continued to believe that Arielle did not qualify for a residential placement. In a letter dated February 22, 1993, Mrs. Shanahan responded that she thought that she and her husband had accepted the CSE's 1992-1993 IEP provisionally, and with the understanding that the CSE was going to identify potential residential placements for Arielle.¹ Mrs. Shanahan also sent a letter dated February 22, 1993, to the president of the Board of Education requesting an impartial hearing to challenge Arielle's 1992-93 IEP.²

On February 26, 1993, Mrs. Shanahan contacted Mr. Daniel L. Mevic to represent her and her husband at the hearing.³ On April 9, 1993, Mr. Mevic sent a letter to Mr. Donald E. Budman, the Defendant's counsel, informing him that he had been retained by the Shanahans to represent them at the impartial hearing and needed Arielle's student records. On May 7, 1993, Mr. Budman delivered the requested records to Mr. Mevic and also suggested that the CSE go ahead and conduct an annual review of Arielle's IEP. Mr. Budman also noted that if the District and the Shanahans reached an agreement at the annual review, they could dispense with the impartial hearing, and if they did not reach an agreement, they could present the impartial hearing officer with a more timely dispute. The Plaintiffs agreed.

In a letter dated June 21, 1993, Mr. Mevic sent Mr. Budman a lengthy letter summarizing the reports of various mental health professionals who had evaluated Arielle. The professionals were virtually unanimous in their support for a residential educational placement for Arielle. (See Complaint, Exs. I-M). Arielle's 1993-94 annual review was held on July 22, 1993. At the meeting, the Shanahans and Mr. Mevic recommended placing Arielle at the Devereux Foundation Mapleton Center, a residential educational facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The CSE initially rejected Plaintiffs' recommendation, and drafted an IEP recommending resource room five times per week, in-school counseling once per week, and outside counseling one hour per week.⁴ However, the CSE also recommend that the District send someone to the Mapleton Center to review its services. The Shanahans, Arielle, and the High School Vice-Principal, Mr. Brinkerhoff, visited the Mapleton Center on August 2 and 3, 1993. Another CSE meeting was held on held on August 26, 1993. At this meeting, the CSE revisited Arielle's proposed 1993-94 IEP and decided to issue a new IEP recommending that Arielle be placed at the Mapleton Center.

Mrs. Shanahan requested reimbursement for Plaintiffs' costs and attorney's fees in a letter to the new director of Pupil Personnel Services, Mr. Steve Saya. Mr. Saya denied their request in a letter dated July 15, 1994. Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 10, 1995.

Discussion

I. Statute of Limitations

As stated, the Defendant first argues that this action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The IDEA itself does not contain a limitations period. Moreover, the four year federal statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 does not apply to Plaintiffs' claims because the IDEA was enacted prior to December 1, 1990. Thus, the Court must look to "the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action." Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 484 (1980).

The Defendants argue that the four month statute of limitations governing Article 78 proceedings in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 217 applies and bars Plaintiffs' claim because this action was filed almost seven months after the Board denied Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees. The Defendant relies heavily on Adler v. Education Department of the State of New York, 760 F.2d 454 (2d Cir.1985). There the court held that the four month statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 217 gave the aggrieved party ample time to prepare and file their action seeking judicial review a final decision of the New York State Commissioner of Education resolving a dispute over tuition reimbursement. Id. at 457-458. The court found that the four month statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 217 was appropriate in light of the two levels of administrative hearings that had already taken place, and the policies and legislative history underlying the IDEA such as its "stay-put" provision, which requires school districts to maintain a child's most recent educational placement during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceedings. Id. at 458-459.⁵ In response, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should apply the three year statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214(2), which applies to actions seeking "to recover upon a liability ... created or imposed by statute."

After carefully reviewing the Adler decision and additional case law on this issue, the Court finds that the Defendant's reliance on Adler is misplaced. A number of district court decisions from this circuit, all of which were decided after Adler, apply the three year statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214(2) to actions seeking attorney's fees under the IDEA. For example, in Michael M. v. Board of Education of New York City Sch. Dist., 686 F.Supp. 995, 1001-1002 (E.D.N.Y. 1988), the court rejected the Adler reasoning, stating that "there is no similarity between an action for attorney's fees and an action to appeal a final administrative determination" because "speed is not of the essence ... [and] concerns about the impact of education planning, as set forth in Adler ... are not warranted." In Robert D. v. Sobel, 688 F.Supp. 861, 864 (S.D.N.Y.1988), the court applied the three year statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214(2) for substantially the same reasons. Furthermore, in Mason v. Schenectady City Sch. Dist., 879 F.Supp. 215, 220 (N.D.N.Y.1993), Judge Cholakis, writing for this Court, applied the three year statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214(2) to an action seeking to force a school district to observe the IDEA's procedural protections.

In this case, it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs brought this action on February 10, 1995, approximately seven months after the Board denied Plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees. In addition, unlike in Adler, there is no administrative record before the Court, speed is not of the essence, and Arielle's educational planning and services are not jeopardized in any way because she is currently placed at the Mapleton Center, the Plaintiffs' placement of choice. Therefore, the Court finds that this action is governed by the three year statute of limitations in N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214(2), and was timely filed.⁶

II. Prevailing Party

As stated, the Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs are not "prevailing parties" under the IDEA. The IDEA provides: "[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorney's fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a child or youth with a disability who is the prevailing party." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) (Supp.1995). A prevailing party is one who has succeeded on any significant claim affording at least some of the relief sought. Texas State Teachers Assoc. v. Garland Independent Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989).

Legal services rendered in connection with CSE meetings and annual reviews are not "actions or proceedings" within the meaning of § 1415(e)(4)(B), see Brown v....