of the inquiry to which Buckhannon directs us, even if not entitled as such.” Id. (citing Buckhannon, 121 S.Ct. at 1840). 4 . Interestingly, the Court made this statement despite the district court's denial of attorneys' fees for time spent preparing for and attending the planning team meetings. Id. at 122. 5 . It has been held that a settlement agreement that was "transcribed and entered into the due process hearing as a formal Agreed Order of the Hearing Officer” changed the legal status of the parties and thus might entitle the plaintiffs to prevailing party status. Brandon K. v. New Lenox School Dist., No. CIV.A.01C-4625, 2001 WL 1491499, at * 2 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 23, 2001); Jose v. Joliet Township H.S. Dist., No. CIV.A.01-C-4798, 2001 WL 1000734, at *1-2 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 29, 2001) (<HOLDING>). Despite these rulings, it does not appear to
holding that prevailing party status may be conferred by interim judicial relief that alters the parties legal relationship holding that as a matter of contract no party can be forced to arbitrate unless that party has entered into an agreement to do so holding that plaintiff may be entitled to prevailing party status where the mediation agreement entered into by the parties was read into the record before a hearing officer holding that evidence to prove a conspiracy need only be such that reasonable jurors could infer that the parties entered into an unlawful agreement holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees