Oskowis v. Sedona Oak-Creek Unified School District #9

          ORDER

          Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge.

         Pending 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Oskowis 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.

         On 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.)

         On June 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. (Id.)

         On June 22, 2018, the District filed a motion for summary judgment on Oskowis's affirmative claims. (Doc. 68.)

         On 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).

         On 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.)

         On 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. (Id.)

         On March 5, 2019, the District filed a motion for attorneys' fees. (Doc. 83.)

         On March 6, 2019, Oskowis filed a motion to strike the District's motion for attorneys' fees. (Doc. 88.)

         On March 20, 2019, the District filed a motion under Rule 41 to ...