In Irvine Unified School Dist. v. K.G., published April 13, 2017, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an attorney fee award to a student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, but reversed the order setting the amount of the award and remanded the matter back to the district court for recalculation. Three agencies agreed that K.G. was entitled to a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the IDEA, but each agency contended it was not responsible for paying for K.G.'s special education. K.G. initiated an action in the California Office of Administrative Hearings asking that an administrative law judge deem one of the three agencies responsible for paying for his education. The ALJ deemed the school district responsible. The school district brought an IDEA action in federal court challenging that ruling, and arguing that the state was the responsible agency. It named the other agencies and K.G. as defendants. Before the district court ruled on the case, K.G. graduated from high school. There was no threat to take his diploma away. During the district court proceedings, K.G. argued that the state was responsible for his education Seven months after K.G. graduated, the district court ruled that the state was responsible. The state appealed to the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit ruled that the district was responsible. On remand, the district court awarded K.G. his attorney fees. The school district appealed the fee award.
The 9th Circuit ruled that K.G. was entitled to attorney fees. He brought the administrative action because the dispute over funding threatened his FAPE. He obtained an enforceable decision in that action that one of the agencies was responsible for his education. The district "kept the meter running" by bringing the district court suit while K.G. was still a student. The majority held, however, that K.G.'s fees should be reduced if it was unreasonable for his attorneys to continue litigating (rather than seeking K.G.'s dismissal from the suit as a defendant) after K.G. graduated and could no longer benefit from the litigation. A dissenting judge opined that the fee award should not be reduced.