# Opposition Brief — Muscogee County School District v. Mitten ex rel. Mitten

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0729%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1990
- **Citation:** 493 U.S. 1072

## Text

5) _ _ Supreme Court, U.S, 7
, a F T L ms)
No. 89-905 ““ ‘| . £o
—JAN 2 99
In The JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, UR.
CLERK

OS tm

Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1989

y‘%
vw

r

. MUSCOGEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,

= MUSCOGEE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

: AND DR. BRAXTON A. NAIL, SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS FOR MUSCOGEE COUNTY,

Petitioners,

PAIGE MITTEN, BY AND THROUGH HER FATHER
AND NEXT FRIEND, ALAN MITTEN,
AND ALAN MITTEN, INDIVIDUALLY,

‘ Respondents.
ke +

. BRIEF OF PAIGE MITTEN AND ALAN MITTEN
a AS RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THE

ae PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
ig UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

>.
-

JONATHAN A. ZimrINc*
Epwarp L. GREENBLATT

Counsel for Respondents
Paige Mitten and Alan Mitten

*Counsel of Record

z, GREENBLATT & KING
al ‘A | Tower

TABLE OF CONTENTS

py Se en) 5) ee oer
SERRE I PARP URTUPMREIED 5 oe og cee ade vndwcesvcnve>
Soy se ee er ee ree
RPO GOW OPO Cee cee ce cose veewenss
SUPRA GPP AUSUIIEINT .. occ cence neces

REASONS THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CER-
TIORARI SHOULD BE DENIED.................

I. THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI SHOULD NOT
BE GRANTED, AS CONTRARY TO THE
ASSERTION OF THE PETITIONERS, THERE
IS NO SPLIT IN THE CIRCUITS ON THIS
ISSUE. THIS RULING IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT OF THE STATUTE, THE LEGIS-
LATIVE HISTORY AND THE LANGUAGE OF
PE ET 65 o ce TAA ek EN Wikes Kener es

A. There Is No Split In The Circuits.......

B. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Properly Ruled That The HCPA Grants A
Claim For Administrative Fees..........

I> THE PETITIONERS ASSERTION THAT THE
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
USED THE WRONG LEGAL STANDARD TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THE FAMILY HAD
PREVAILED, I.E., HOLDING RESPONDENTS
HAD OBTAINED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF
INSTEAD OF UTILIZING A “CENTRAL ISSUE”
TEST IS WITHOUT MERIT. THE COURT OF
APPEALS PROPERLY APPLIED THE HENSLEY
@ ECRERMART STANDARD..................

9

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
Page

A. The Standard Of Review Is The Hensley v.
Eckerhart Standard of Substantial Relief.... 15

B. The Plaintiffs Prevailed On A Significant
Issue In The Litigation And Obtained
Some Of The Relief They Sought........ 16

Ill. THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
WHICH EXIST TO DENY THIS FAMILY A
RIGHT TO ATTORNBYS FEES ........-..... 19

IV. THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE OF THE
HCPA GRANTING A RIGHT TO ATTOR-
NEY’S FEES FOR THE LIMITED NUMBER
OF CASES RESOLVED BETWEEN SMITH V.
ROBINSON AND THE ENACTMENT OF
THE HCPA IN AUGUST OF 1986 DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE SPENDING POWER CLAUSE
OR THE SEPARATION OF POWERS
CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STASGSs ........ »» scsueeeeeees 23

CONCLUSION .... ....s0 ss aue 65 sane eer 28

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
Cases
Arons v. New Jersey State Board of Education, 842
NE re 9
Barbara R. v. Tirozzi, 665 FSupp. 141 (D.Conn.
eee ck aca en ensbasce evuveeyeeees+s 27
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984)................. 22

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)..... 27
Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 416 US.

Ne Ce cwweeveeuesees 27
Brown v. McGarr, 774 F.2d 777 (7th Cir. 1985)........ 25
Burke v. Guiney, 700 F.2d 767 (ist Cir. 1983)......... 20

Capello v. District of Columbia Board of Education,
EG =) re 26

Christiansburg Garment Company v. EEOC, 434 U.S.
I iiinleby-cc sees cesscccencsescsss. 20

Concerned Democrats of Florida v. Reno, 601 F.2d 891
ies isa es vnvicses ss escreeees: 20

Counsel v. Dow, 849 F.2d 731 (2nd Cir. 1988), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. __, 109 S.Ct. 391, 102 L.Ed. 2d
EEE 9, 23, 26, 27, 28

Chang v. Board of Educ. of Glen Ridge TP., 685
ES ee eee 14

Duane M. v. Orleans Parish School Board, 861 F.2d
EE 9, 12, 13

Eggers v. Bullit Cour‘ School Board, 854 F.2d 892
EE 9, 12, 13, 22

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES —- Continued

Page

Espino v. Besteiro, 708 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1983)...... 20
Fontenot v. Louisiana Bd. of Elem. and Second. Educ.,

$35 F.2d 117 Gth Cir. 1968)... ccc v cen sedesene’ 20, 27

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976)............-- 27

Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority, 690 F.2d
601, (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961
CBOE ance ciccdneviccnkceseVontanen sth ee eehe es ress 20

Georgia Association for Retarded Citizens v.
McDaniel, 855 F.2d 805 (11th Cir. 1988), cert.

denied, 489 U.S. __, 109 S.Ct. 2431 (1989)....... 6, 23
Gore v. Turner, 563 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1977) .......... 22
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) .6, 7, 14, 15, 16
Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 757 (1987)..............4-. 19
Honig v. Doe, 488 U.S. __, 108 S.Ct. 592, 98 L.Ed

Dee OO Cenk inv eho cs sanciekesseenaeee ee 26, 27
Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1977)...... irase mets aay a
International Oceanic Enterprises, Inc. v. Menton, 614

F.2d 502 (Sth Cir. 1980)...........6- esse seer eeeees 22
] & J Anderson, Inc. v. Erie, 767 F.2d 1469 (10th Cir.

19GB). . ccdcevccdacsubiup eases bacnsaseaeeee 20
Jones v. City of Lubbock, 727 F.2d 364 (Sth Cir. 1984) .... 27
Jones v. Reagan, 748 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1984)........ 25
Lauren T. v. Crisp County, SBE 1986-28................ 4
Leonard v. Argento, 699 F.2d 874 (7th Cir. 1982),

cert. denied, 464 US. G15 (9G) ois in ceue Si ei iede. 22

Manacke v. School Board of Pinnelas County, Fl., 762
F.2d 912 (ith Civ. 1906).....iscccccuedesteeeweeens 27

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES —- Continued

Page
Mathern v. Campbell County Children’s Center, 674
ee 2s ee 14
McCormack v. Burlington Elementary School District,
C-88-0141 (JPO) (N.D. Cal. 1988).................. 10
McSomebodies v. Burlington Elementary School Dis-
ivect, G66 Fad 1557 Oth Cir. 1969) .............. 9, 10
Miami Herald Publishing Company v. City of Hallan-
dale, 742 F.2a S90 (ith Cir. 1964)................. 15

~ Mitten by and through Mitten v. Muscogee County

School District, 877 F.2d 932 (11th Cir. 1989)... passim
Moore v. District of Columbia, 886 F.2d 1335 (D.C.

IE PNG 8 so 6 405 34 4) 8 ¥ 4 oe econ gee Ors dee 9, 10
Moore v. District of Columbia, No. 88-7003 (D.C. Cir.

oo A ee 10
Morrow v. Stewart, 580 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1978)..... 20
Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1978) ..... 15

New York Gas Light Club v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54 (1980) .11, 13

North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Crest
Street Community Council, 479 U.S. 6 (1986)
ess frre, {Lee Pe eee ET CTE TEER CETL Ce wei aay Ba, 94

Odum v. Clark, 748 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1984)........ 15

Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman,
CG 6, 26, 27, 28

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Gray & Co., 467
cd cept es xe evediseddvetvcees 24, 25

Popham v. City of Kennessaw, 820 F.2d 1570 (11th
einen nec aces yvcesenessecss ced 15

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

Prescott v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
Dist., 659 F.Supp. 921 (N.D. Cal. 1987)......... 10,

Rhodes v. Stewart, 488 U.S. __, 109 S.Ct. __, 102
Lal BB 1 GROG inks cc csacck ieee

Rollison v. Biggs, 660 F.Supp. 875 (D.Del. 1987) ......

Sch. Bd. of Prince William County v. Malone, 662
F.Supp. 999 (2.D. Va. 196) «6s esecenaves iududeen

Serafina v. San Mateo City School District et al.,
C-88-0799 (JPO) (N.D. Cal. 1989)...............46-

Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984)..... 8, 23, 26,
Temple University v. United States, 769 F.2d 126 (3rd

27

Che. 1908) coc cavicvwssasacuyewenyieseeeeepneeaas 25
Texas Teachers Association v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist.,

489 US. __, 109 S.Ct. __, 103 L.Ed. 2d 866

(39GB)... ccvcndencetwoedesaceeedseesenwarenes passim
Tonya K. By Diane K. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 847

F2d 1263 Gth Cir, 19GB .00+ 11

Wilson v. Attaway, 757 F.2d 1227 (11th Cir. 1985) .... 15

Yaris v. Special Sch. Dist., 661 F.Supp. 996 (E.D. Mo.
Mt es he ieee kau ee RE OR ae 4.4 ves 27

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
AND RuLEs OF CourT

Fourteenth Amendment To The United States
SUE eee tebe ooo sc cvevsrennseses 6, 8, 26

eer ot gwd Disabled Bill of Rights Act, 42
SS TL SU vache caatant vera sees he ees 27

Education For All Handicapped Children’s Act of
1975, as amended, 20 U.S.C. §§ 140T et seq. .. passim

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 43
U.S.C. § 1701, Pub. L. 94-579, 90 Stat. 2743....... 25

Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986,
P.L. 99-372, 100 Stat. 796, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) ....4, 7

Rule 17 (1)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court .... 10

Title IV of the Employment Retirement Income

SS BARS at Dk) Ge 24
Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
LOGE ae Windies vere rineeseeercricces 12

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Right’s Act, 42 U.S.C.
aby tay 33

viii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page
30 USL..B SOl OO OG. oie ies Feisna sy pease 24
po Bik toe 2 errr errr rrr - PB Ay 4
TD UA. Fete ccs cccsctentevccsnucease cee 4
OR WE BT ak oh dcr kina cesenareeee 6, 11, 12
O.C.G.A. ch. 37-6 Day Car Centers For The Men-
Cay TRORINIONE oie ceed ds edn ik spe ee 2

FEDERAL REGULATIONS

$6 CHA & MON ..... 00.00 eee 3
$6 CRE 6 SOREN... .. 05s eercloee eee 3
4 CIE COS... ...- 55. ee 3

OTHER MATERIALS

Handbook of Practice and Internal Operating Pro-
cedures and Rules, D.C. Circuit, August 1, 1987.... 10

Hockman, “The Supreme Court and the Constitu-
tionality of Retroactive Legislation”, 73 Harv.
Law, GOR CP a dace ticks ccc sdicbulaocsmawssiass: 24

H. Rep. 99-296, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985)...... 13, 16

H. Cong. Rep. 99-687, reprinted in part, U.S. Cong.
& Admin. News, 99th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1799
(TSB) ..0.0 sccccccectsissdnsdanes chaaeneeeelenetss 13

Schreck, “Attorney’s Fees For Administrative Pro-
ceedings Under. The Education Of The Hand-
icapped Act: of Carey, Crest Street And
Congressional Intent”, 60 Temple Law Quar-
terty SOP CHGS)... ioc nctncdhcdpccoweguaeaenea read $

28

unambiguously. Pennhurst I, 451 U.S. at 147. The HCPA
expressly makes itself retroactive and therefore does not
cross the Pennhurst I limitation. See, e.g., Mitten, 877 F.2d
at 937, App. 12; Counsel v. Dow.

,%
-—_

CONCLUSION

The Petitioners have not demonstrated any grounds
for the granting of the writ. There is no division of
authority between the circuits and the great weight of the
case law is with the Court of Appeals. The statutory
construction of the HCPA below has ample support in the
plain wording of the act, as reinforced by the legislative
history of this curative legislation. The question of the
test for “prevailing parties” was resolved adverse to Peti-
tioners last term in a case the petition ignores. A plain-
tiff’s “ability to pay” an attorney should not be a special
circumstance denying entitlement to fees. Finally, the
HCPA is constitutional legislation and the Petitioners
have not demonstrated any credible argument to the

99

contrary. The Respondents ask this Court to deny
Petition for the Writ of Certiorari

Respectfully submitted,
JONATHAN A. ZIMRIN«
Georgia State Bar No. 78525
Counsel of Record

EDWARD L. GREENBLATT
Georgia State Bar No. 3078

LipsHuUTz, GREENBLATT & KING
2300 Harris Tower

233 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30043
(404) 688-2300

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385020_0729%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.