McSomebodies (No. 1) v. Burlingame Elementary School District

886 F.2d 1558, 1989 WL 118569
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 3, 1989
Docket88-15072
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 886 F.2d 1558 (McSomebodies (No. 1) v. Burlingame Elementary School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McSomebodies (No. 1) v. Burlingame Elementary School District, 886 F.2d 1558, 1989 WL 118569 (9th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge:

At the outset, we change for this opinion the caption to “McSomebodies, et al, v. Burlingame Elementary School District”. We do this because the case involves a very young school child, and we do not think his name should be bound up for posterity in buckram. He may very well recover from his infirmities.

At issue here is the tail of the dog: attorney’s fees against Burlingame Elementary School District.

Preceding this attorney’s fees business, the defendant had been treating the child with certain efforts at the school house. Then, for a while, he was placed in the Hart Day School. That did not do very much for him. His parents requested *1559 placement of the boy in a residential setting. The School District refused.

An administrative hearing was held which resulted in a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The School District did not appeal. After the administrative decision, plaintiffs asked for attorney’s fees, costs and expenses, and were denied.

Now the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986, Pub.L. No. 99-372, 100 Stat. 796-98, comes into play.

The plaintiffs filed an original suit, not an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. That court ruled against plaintiffs.

On appeal we reverse, holding that the plaintiffs may recover attorney’s fees and appropriate costs plus expenses. See Duane M. v. Orleans Parish School Board, 861 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1988), and Eggers v. Bullitt County School District, 854 F.2d 892 (6th Cir.1988).

Of course, our trial court, at the time of its decision, did not have the plethora of cases now available.

REVERSED for proceedings consistent with our decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Masotti v. Tustin Unified School District
806 F. Supp. 221 (C.D. California, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
886 F.2d 1558, 1989 WL 118569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcsomebodies-no-1-v-burlingame-elementary-school-district-ca9-1989.