Whether the court of appeals' decision regarding the phrase 'substantially justified' fails to follow Pierce v. Underwood and conflicts with Gary G. v. El Paso Independent School District

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent, Rena C., filed a fee petition in district court. Finding that Rena C. “was not justified in ignoring and rejecting” Petitioner, Colonial School District’s written offer of settlement, and that “[w]hen her counsel did belatedly respond to the ten-day offer, he did so on frivolous grounds, failed to seek clarification of the offer and insisted on pressing frivolous arguments throughout the proceedings,” the district court found Rena C. “was not substantially justified in rejecting Colonial’s offer.” The Third Circuit, using a plenary standard of review, reversed, ruling that rejecting an offer without attorney’s fees is substantially justified. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the court of appeals’ decision regarding the phrase “substantially justified” used in the attorney’s fee shifting provision in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 fails to follow this Court’s decision in Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988), and conflicts with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Gary G. v. El Paso Independent School District, 632 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2011), by applying plenary review and creating a per se legal rule rather than applying abuse of discretion review to the district court’s findings that Rena C.’s litigation was frivolous and that she was not substantially justified in rejecting a written offer of settlement? 2. The court of appeals concluded “[h]ad Rena C. accepted the offer, she would not be the prevailing ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued party,” App. at 21, and so not entitled to attorney’s fees under Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001). Contrary to Buckhannon’s rejection of the catalyst theory, and contrary to Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717 (1986), which rejected the coercive settlement offer argument, the court of appeals proceeded to decide as a matter of law that “[a] parent is substantially justified in rejecting an offer that does not include the payment of reasonable attorney’s fees when the school district cannot reasonably believe that no attorney’s fees have accrued.” App. 25. Did the court of appeals err by creating an “any time a lawyer is involved,” i.e., a lawyer as catalyst, exception to Buckhannon and a fairness exception to Evans v. Jeff D.?