eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2013-11

Victoria Hall Ralph Hall v. Coolidge Unified School District No. 21 ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                            FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            NOV 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTORIA HALL; RALPH HALL, )                  No. 12-15523
individually and on behalf of J.H. )
a minor,                           )          D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00294-ROS
)
Plaintiffs - Appellants,     )          MEMORANDUM*
)
v.                           )
)
COOLIDGE UNIFIED SCHOOL            )
DISTRICT NO. 21,                   )
)
Defendant - Appellee.        )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 6, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Victoria and Ralph Hall appeal the district court’s order which awarded
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
them attorney’s fees after they prevailed in their action against Coolidge Unified
School District No. 21. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). We affirm.
We have carefully reviewed the record and we hold that the district court did
not abuse its discretion1 when it determined the “rates prevailing in the community
in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services
furnished”2 and then calculated the fee award based upon those rates.3
AFFIRMED.
1
See United States. v. Hinkson,
    585 F.3d 1247
    , 1261–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (en
banc); Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69,
    374 F.3d 857
    , 861 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C); see also Blum v. Stenson,
    465 U.S. 886
    , 895
n.11,
    104 S. Ct. 1541
    , 1547 n.11,
    79 L. Ed. 2d 891 
    (1984); Christensen v.
Stevedoring Servs. of Am.,
    557 F.3d 1049
    , 1053 (9th Cir. 2009);
    Shapiro, 374 F.3d at 865
    –66; Barjon v. Dalton,
    132 F.3d 496
    , 502 (9th Cir. 1997); Greater L.A.
Council on Deafness v. Cmty. Television of S. Cal.,
    813 F.2d 217
    , 221 (9th Cir.
1987).
3
The Halls suggest that the State Bar of Arizona’s, 2010 Economics of Law
Practice in Arizona, upon which the district court relied, is inadmissible hearsay.
However, that issue was not raised before the district court. We decline to consider
it. See O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr.,
    502 F.3d 1056
    , 1063 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007);
Pfingston v. Ronan Eng’g Co.,
    284 F.3d 999
    , 1003–04 (9th Cir. 2002).
2