R.R.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss ¶ 18, May 22, 2007 ("[Settlements with a school district (except those that result from a resolution meeting ...) are not enforceable ....” (emphasis added)); R.R.'s Reply to EPISD's Opp'n to Mot. for Summ. J. 2, Dec. 14, 2007 ("Likewise, any written settlement agreement that is 'reached to resolve the complaint at a [resolution meeting]' ... is enforceable in a state or federal court.”).) 13 . As a threshold matter, the IDEA states that § 1415(i)(3)(F) shall not apply "if the court finds that the ... local educational agency unreasonably protracted the final resolution of the action or proceeding ...." Id. § 1415(i)(3)(G). Nothing in the record indicates that EPISD unreaso , District of Columbia v. Ijeabuonwu, 631 F.Supp.2d 101, 104 (D.D.C.2009) (<HOLDING>); Parenteau v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist., No.
recognizing that a school district must be a prevailing party in order to be entitled to attorneys fees under the idea 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 a defendant is the prevailing party within the meaning of statutory provisions awarding attorneys fees to the prevailing party even when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the action holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea holding award of attorneys fees to party prevailing on contract claim is mandatory under section 38001 if there is proof of the reasonableness of the fees