United States District Court, D. Arizona
Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.
before the Court are Defendant Sedona Oak-Creek Unified
School District #9's (“the District”) motion
for attorneys' fees (Doc. 83), Plaintiff Matthew
Oskowis's motion to strike the District's motion for
attorneys' fees (Doc. 88), and the District's motion
to withdraw Counterclaim IV (Doc. 94). For the reasons that
follow, the Court will defer ruling on the District's
motion for attorneys' fees until judgment is entered,
deny Oskowis's motion to strike, and deny the
District's motion to withdraw Counterclaim IV.
is the father of E.O., a boy diagnosed with infantile autism.
Between June 2016 and March 2017, Oskowis filed three due
process complaints against the District, each claiming that
E.O. was denied a free appropriate public education
(“FAPE”) under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400,
et seq. Each due process complaint was dismissed as
frivolous by an administrative law judge during the
administrative proceedings below.
April 13, 2017, Oskowis filed this lawsuit, which challenges
the dismissal of his due process complaints. (Doc. 1.) He
amended the complaint on June 7, 2017. (Doc. 17.)
21, 2017, the District filed an answer and counterclaims.
(Doc. 19.) The District then amended its answer and
counterclaims on October 26, 2017. (Doc. 30.) The
counterclaims consist of five counts, all seeking
attorneys' fees. Counts I through III seek attorneys'
fees arising from the three administrative proceedings at
issue in this lawsuit. Count IV seeks attorneys' fees for
an unrelated administrative proceeding. Count V seeks
“fees-on-fees” for time reasonably incurred
pursuing an application for attorneys' fees.
22, 2018, the District filed a motion for summary judgment on
Oskowis's affirmative claims. (Doc. 68.)
February 19, 2019, the Court granted the District's
motion for summary judgment (Doc. 77) and entered judgment on
behalf of the District (Doc. 78).
February 21, 2019, the District filed a motion asking the
Court to amend its judgment “to reflect that [the
District's] counterclaims against [Oskowis] remain
pending.” (Doc. 79.)
February 22, 2019, the Court granted the District's
motion to amend and vacated the judgment. (Doc. 80.) Thus,
the District's counterclaims remain pending.
March 5, 2019, the District filed a motion for attorneys'
fees. (Doc. 83.)
March 6, 2019, Oskowis filed a motion to strike the
District's motion for attorneys' fees. (Doc. 88.)
March 20, 2019, the District filed a motion under Rule 41 to