only partial or limited success.” Id. A district court determines the amount of the fee award based on the significance of the results obtained by the prevailing party. Id. at 437-38, 103 S.Ct. 1933. A. Plaintiff Is the Prevailing Party To qualify as a prevailing party under IDEA’S fee-shifting statute, a plaintiff “must obtain at least some relief on the merits of [her] claim.” Farrar, 506 U.S. at 111, 113 S.Ct. 566. This means that “[t]he plaintiff must obtain an enforceable judgment against the defendant from whom fees are sought, or comparable relief through a consent decree ....” Id. (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff must have been more than a mere catalyst for change that occurred without the need for judicial intervention. Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 604-05, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (<HOLDING>). “In short, a plaintiff ‘prevails’ when actual
holding that prevailing party status may be conferred by interim judicial relief that alters the parties legal relationship holding that it need not reach a decision on whether a party could prevail under buckhannon in the absence of a consent decree or a final judgment on the merits 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 holding that to be a prevailing party a plaintiff must obtain a judgment or judiciallyenforced consent decree a party does not prevail without a judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship