Recent significant verdicts obtained by Diane B. Weissburg
Weissburg v. Lancaster Sch. Dist., 591 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) The court held that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties. The denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) was not required for plaintiffs to qualify as prevailing parties. The change in eligibility category materially altered the legal relationship between the parties because it entitled the child to placement in a classroom with a teacher qualified to teach students with the primary disabilities of the student.
Finally, plaintiffs were eligible to receive attorneys' fees for the representation provided by the child's grandmother, a practicing attorney. The court declined to extend its bright-line rule prohibiting attorney-parents from receiving attorneys' fees under the IDEA.
1. Weissburg v LACO DCFS, et al LASC
No. SC093110, Employment,
Settlement $275,000.00 May 26, 2011 2. Harris v. Morris, et al LASC
No. SC 106971, July 6, 2011, Auto v. Auto; Settlement
$26,135.00 3. Iniquez-Herrera v. Children's Center Antelope
Valley, et al
No. MC 021941, August 25, 2011, Employment
Settlement $100,000.00 4. Guerrero v. Smith, et al LASC
No VC051679 Premises Liability, Judgment by Court February 16,
2011, $38,900.00 5. MCNEILv. COULTER, Court of Appeal 2nd District,
B219538, Judgment affirmed in full;