Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BENNETT, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.1202 II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.1202 III. FINDINGS OF FACT.1204 A Undisputed Facts.1204 B.Disputed Facts.1205 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS.1205 A. Purpose And Provisions Of The IDEA.1205 B. Judicial Review Under The IDEA.1206 C. Claims For Attorneys Fees Under The IDEA.1206 1. Fee claims versus judicial review.1208 2. Fee claims versus judicial review under the IDEA.1208 D. The Statute Of Limitations For IDEA Attorneys Fees Actions.1212 1. The method for selecting the proper statute of limitations.1212 2. Prior decisions determining the applicable statute of limitations.1213 3. The proper statute of limitations here.1216 a. The parties’ proffers.1216 b. Application of the Wilson analysis.1217 c. The proper statute of limitations here.1220 V. CONCLUSION.1221 The issue in these lawsuits for attorney fees filed on behalf of seven school age children with disabilities is more than simply a question of whether one attorney will get paid for services rendered, and instead raises serious repercussions for the vindication of the rights of disabled children to obtain an appropriate public education. The defendants’ motions for summary judgment in these lawsuits are also of significance beyond mere disposition of these cases, because they present an issue of first impression in this circuit. That question is, what statute of limitations applies to an action for attorneys fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.1 Congress has provided no answer, and the array of answers offered by other courts to consider the question, coupled with the lack of any controlling decision from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals or any persuasive decision from a district court of this circuit, compel this court’s entry into the fray. The variety of judicial determinations of the statute of limitations applicable here is particularly disconcerting when the Supreme Court has said that “ ‘[flew areas of the law stand in greater need of firmly defined, easily applied rules than does the subject of periods of limitations.’ ” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (quoting Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 667, 103 S.Ct. 2611, 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 74 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). In the absence of a congressional statement making for the fervently desired clarity on the issue, however, the court must draw upon the analytical tools supplied by the Supreme Court to fill the gap. Plaintiffs in these cases, seven disabled children and their parents, have filed actions to recover attorney fees and costs asserting that they are prevailing parties in administrative proceedings under the IDEA. Defendants, a community school district and an area education authority, have moved for summary judgment in each case on the ground that the plaintiffs’ suits for fees are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, which defendants assert is a 30-day limitations period “borrowed” from the judicial review provisions of the Iowa Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiffs counter that a longer statute of limitations is both appropriate and necessary in light of the policies behind the IDEA. I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The plaintiffs in each of the actions captioned above filed a complaint on October 5, 1994, seeking to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Plaintiffs are disabled children and their parents who prevailed in administrative proceedings in which they asserted that defendants, the Sioux City Community School District (the District) and the Western Hills Area Education Agency, Area 12 (the Agency), had improperly excluded each child from school or had denied the child due process in the formulation or administration of the child’s individualized education program (IEP), or both, in violation of the IDEA. The administrative proceedings in each case terminated, either by settlement or by rendering of an administrative decision without further appeal between mid-October of 1992 and March of 1993. The decision or settlement in each case granted significant relief to each of the plaintiffs. In their complaints, the plaintiffs therefore seek recovery of attorney fees and costs as prevailing parties in the administrative proceedings pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B). Defendants acknowledged and accepted service in each case, and, on November 7, 1994, answered each of the complaints. In each case, defendants asserted as affirmative defenses, inter alia, that the complaint was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations. On March 8, 1995, Chief Magistrate Judge John A. Jarvey entered a scheduling order in each case establishing a deadline of June 1, 1995, for dispositive motions. The District and the Agency filed motions for summary judgment in each case on June 1, 1995, asserting that each complaint is time-barred by application of the most analogous state statute of limitations, a thirty-day statute of limitations for judicial review found in the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, Iowa Code § 17A.19(3). Plaintiffs resisted the motions for summary judgment on June 14, 1995, contending that the most appropriate state statute of limitations is a “catch-all,” five-year limitations period found in Iowa Code § 614.1(4). Plaintiffs also suggest that this limitations period might be further extended by Iowa Code § 614.8, which extends any other applicable statute of limitations in favor of mentally ill persons “so that they have one year from and after the termination of such disability within which to commence said action.” Iowa Code § 614.8. The court held oral arguments on defendants’ motions for summary judgment on June 27, 1995. Plaintiffs were represented by counsel A1 Sturgeon of Sioux City, Iowa. Defendants were represented by counsel James C. Hanks of Klass, Hanks, Stoos, Stoik, Mugan & Villone, in Sioux City, Iowa. Both counsel ably argued their respective positions, and while the arguments were spirited, counsel were very responsive to the numerous questions posed to them by the court. The court finds this matter fully submitted, and therefore turns first to the standards applicable to disposition of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. II. STANDARDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes “that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and must be exercised with extreme care to prevent taking genuine issues of fact away from juries.” Wabun-Inini v. Sessions, 900 F.2d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir.1990). On the other hand, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have authorized for nearly 60 years “motions for summary judgment upon proper showings of the lack of a genuine, triable issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2555, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Thus, “summary judgment procedure is properly regarded not as a disfavored procedural shortcut, but rather as an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed ‘to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.’ ” Wabun-Inini, 900 F.2d at 1238 (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2555, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); Hartnagel v. Norman, 953 F.2d 394, 396 (8th Cir.1992). The standard for granting summary judgment is well established. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in pertinent part: Rule 56. Summary Judgment (b) For Defending Party. A party against whom a claim ... is asserted ... may, at any time, move for summary judgment in the party’s favor as to all or any part thereof. (c) Motions and Proceedings Thereon _ The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b) & (c) (emphasis added); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-28, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-53, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1325 (8th Cir.1995); Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 798 (8th Cir.1994); Roth v. U.S.S. Great Lakes Fleet, Inc., 25 F.3d 707, 708 (8th Cir.1994); Cole v. Bone, 993 F.2d 1328, 1331 (8th Cir.1993); Woodsmith Publishing Co. v. Meredith Corp., 904 F.2d 1244, 1247 (8th Cir.1990); Wabun-Inini, 900 F.2d at 1238 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A court considering a motion for summary judgment must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here the plaintiffs, and give the plaintiffs the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962)); Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 796 (8th Cir.1994); Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc., 28 F.3d 64, 66 (8th Cir.1994); Johnson v. Group Health Plan, Inc., 994 F.2d 543, 545 (8th Cir.1993); Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 492 (8th Cir.1991); Coday v. City of Springfield, 939 F.2d 666, 667 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1094, 112 S.Ct. 1170, 117 L.Ed.2d 416 (1992). Proeedurally, the moving parties, here the defendants, bear “the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for their motion and identifying those portions of the record which show lack of a genuine issue.” Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 395 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53); see also Reed v. Woodruff County, Ark., 7 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir.1993). The defendants, as the non-moving parties, are not required by Rule 56 to support their motions with affidavits or other similar materials negating their opponents’ claim. Id. “When a moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586, 106 S.Ct. at 1356. The plaintiffs are therefore required under Rule 56(e) to go beyond the pleadings, and by affidavits, or by the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate “specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; McLaughlin v. Esselte Pendaflex Corp., 50 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir.1995); Beyerbach, 49 F.3d at 1325. Although “direct proof is not required to create a jury question, ... to avoid summary judgment, ‘the facts and circumstances relied upon must attain the dignity of substantial evidence and must not be such as merely to create a suspicion.’ ” Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir.1985) (quoting Impro Products, Inc. v. Herrick, 715 F.2d 1267, 1272 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026, 104 S.Ct. 1282, 79 L.Ed.2d 686 (1984)), cert. denied sub nom. Metge v. Bankers Trust Co., 474 U.S. 1057, 106 S.Ct. 798, 88 L.Ed.2d 774 (1986). The necessary proof that the nonmoving party must produce is not precisely measurable, but the evidence must be “such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc., 28 F.3d 64, 66 (8th Cir.1994). In Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. at 2510, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53, and Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. at 1356, the Supreme Court established that a summary judgment motion should be interpreted by the trial court to accomplish its purpose of disposing of factually unsupported claims, and the trial judge’s function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Johnson v. Enron Corp., 906 F.2d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.1990). The trial court, therefore, must “assess the adequacy of the nonmovants’ response and whether that showing, on admissible evidence, would be sufficient to carry the burden of proof at trial.” Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 396 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. at 2552). If the plaintiffs, the nonmoving parties, fail to make a sufficient showing of an essential element of a claim with respect to which they have the burden of proof, then the defendants are “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. at 2552; Woodsmith, 904 F.2d at 1247. However, if the court can conclude that a reasonable trier of fact could return a verdict for the nonmovant, then summary judgment should not be granted. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Burk, 948 F.2d at 492; Woodsmith, 904 F.2d at 1247. With these standards in mind, the court turns to consideration of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Undisputed Facts The court will not devote itself to an extensive discussion of the facts in each case for a number of reasons: first, owing to plaintiffs’ resistances to the motions for summary judgment, few facts are in dispute; second, the majority of facts material to the present discussion are similar in each case, and are not in dispute; and, third, defendants have moved for summary judgment on an essentially legal ground, the applicable statute of limitations, thus, the court should avoid making extensive findings of fact that are not pertinent to its decision. If the statute of limitations promoted by the defendants is indeed applicable, none of these actions was timely filed and there can be no genuine dispute as to that fact. However, some factual background is essential to an understanding of the posture of the plaintiffs’ complaints. Each of the plaintiffs is either a disabled child within the meaning of IDEA or the parent of such a child. Each plaintiff challenged the exclusion of a disabled child from school or challenged denial of the child’s right to due process in the formulation or administration of the child’s individualized education program (IEP), or both, in administrative proceedings before the Iowa Department of Public Education. In each case, upon termination of those administrative proceedings, between mid-October of 1992 and March of 1993, either by settlement or by rendering of an administrative decision without further appeal, each of the plaintiffs was granted significant relief. The parties do not dispute at this time whether or not the plaintiffs were “prevailing parties” within the meaning of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B). In each of the proceedings, plaintiffs were represented by Sioux City, Iowa, attorney A1 Sturgeon. Upon termination of the proceedings, each of the plaintiffs made a request to the defendants for payment of costs and attorney fees. None of the plaintiffs received a favorable response to that request. B. Disputed Facts The plaintiffs do not dispute any of the facts set out by the defendants. However, plaintiffs do assert that material facts in dispute concern the value of the services rendered to plaintiffs by plaintiffs’ attorney, the hours of service, and the total amount of fees and costs therefore due. The court agrees that these matters are in dispute, and certainly material to the disposition of plaintiffs’ claims on the merits if those claims are not time-barred, but finds that they are not material to disposition of the narrow question upon which defendants have moved for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510; Beyerbach, 49 F.3d at 1326; Hartnagel, 953 F.2d at 394. TV. LEGAL ANALYSIS The court finds it useful to begin its analysis with a brief examination of the purpose of the IDEA and with a more extended discussion of the nature of substantive and fee-claim actions under that statute before turning to the question of the statute of limitations applicable to the fee-claim action here. A. Purpose And Provisions Of The IDEA In passing the IDEA, Congress’s goal was that “all children with disabilities have available to them ... a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, — U.S. -, -, 114 S.Ct. 361, 365, 126 L.Ed.2d 284 (1993) (the purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that children with disabilities receive an education that is both appropriate and free.”); School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 373, 105 S.Ct. 1996, 2004, 85 L.Ed.2d 385 (1985) (same); Light v. Parkway C-2 Sch. Dist., 41 F.3d 1223, 1226 (8th Cir.1994) (quoting § 1400(c) of the IDEA as codifying Congress’s goal), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2557, 132 L.Ed.2d 811 (1995); Dell v. Board of Educ., Tp. High Sch. Dist. 113, 32 F.3d 1053, 1055 (7th Cir.1994) (citing Florence County Sch. Dist. Four, — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 365, and School Comm. of Burlington, 471 U.S. at 373, 105 S.Ct. at 2004). To meet this goal, Congress provided federal funds to “assist State and Local efforts to provide programs to meet the educational needs of handicapped children in order to assure equal protection of the law.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(b)(9). In this respect, the IDEA is like its predecessor, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (EAHCA). Light, 41 F.3d at 1226 (IDEA like EAHCA provides federal funds to states whose policies “assure[] all children with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education,” citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1)). To receive federal funding, however, the participating states must comply with the IDEA’S procedures guaranteeing a reasonable probability of educational benefits and supportive services at public expense. 20 U.S.C. § 1412; Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3041-42, 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982); Johnson v. Bismarck Public Sch. Dist., 949 F.2d 1000, 1002 (8th Cir.1991) (“The [IDEA] provides federal funding to state and local agencies for the education of handicapped children and conditions that funding upon compliance with extensive procedural and substantive requirements,” citing generally Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ.). The education provided each disabled child must be uniquely “appropriate” for the child’s educational needs; therefore the state must prepare an “individualized education program,” or IEP, for each child through joint participation of the local education agency, the child’s teacher, and the child’s parents. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(a)(18)-(20), 1412(4), 1414(a)(5); Johnson, 949 F.2d at 1002. B. Judicial Review Under The IDEA Section 1415 of the IDEA establishes procedures for challenges to the provision of appropriate educational programs to disabled children through a series of administrative levels, culminating in a right to challenge administrative decisions through a civil action in either state or federal court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). Upon judicial review, the courts examine the “obligations, largely procedural in nature, which are imposed upon recipient States by Congress,” and may not “substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.” Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ., 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051; Dell, 32 F.3d at 1057. The Supreme Court elaborated further on the scope of the court’s review: [A] court’s inquiry in suits brought under § 1415(e)(2) is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the Act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? If these requirements are met, the State has complied with the obligations imposed by Congress and the courts can require no more. Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ., 458 U.S. at 206-207, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has opined that the reason for this limited review of administrative decisions made under the IDEA and its precursors is “ ‘[b]ecause judges are not trained educators.’ ” Dell, 32 F.3d at 1058 (quoting Board of Educ. of Community Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 21 v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 938 F.2d 712, 715 (7th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1066, 112 S.Ct. 957, 117 L.Ed.2d 124 (1992)). C. Claims For Attorneys Fees Under The IDEA Additionally, § 1415(e)(4)(B) of the IDEA now provides for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs to parents who prevail in the administrative process or in court, and consequently provides an independent cause of action to recover such fees and costs, but this has not always been so. In 1984, the United States Supreme Court ruled that attorney fees were not available to a prevailing party in an action brought under the IDEA, or the EHA, as it was then known. Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 104 S.Ct. 3457, 82 L.Ed.2d 746 (1984). Two years later, in part in response to the decision in Smith, Congress enacted the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act (HCPA), which legislatively overruled Smith and specifically provided that “[i]n any action or proceeding brought under this subsection, the court in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a child or youth with a disability who is the prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B); see, e.g., Counsel v. Dow, 849 F.2d 731, 739 (2d Cir.1988) (Congress in the first instance sought to encourage, assist, and make whole “those plaintiffs and attorneys who worked to vindicate the rights of handicapped children under the EHA during the two-year period when the Smith decision precluded the award of attorney’s fees under the EHA.”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 955, 109 S.Ct. 391, 102 L.Ed.2d 380 (1988); Fontenot v. Louisiana Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ., 805 F.2d 1222, 1223 (5th Cir.1986) (describing congressional response to the Smith decision by passing § 1415(e)(4) as acting “swiftly, decisively, and with uncharacteristic clarity to correct what it viewed as a judicial misinterpretation of its intent.”). The legislative history reveals Congress’s reasons for adding the fee-claim provisions to the IDEA. Senator Weicker, chairman of the Senate Conference Committee on the HCPA, which incorporated the provision into the act, then known as the EHA, said What we do here today is to make the Education of Handicapped Act consistent with more than 130 other fee shifting statutes which provide for the award of attorney’s fees to parties who prevail in court to obtain what is guaranteed to them by law. Without this remedy, many of our civil rights would be hollow pronouncements available only to those who could afford to sue for enforcement of their rights.” 132 Cong.Rec.S. 9277 (July 17, 1986) (remarks of Sen. Weicker) (emphasis added). In a 1991 decision discussing the IDEA’S provision for an award of attorney fees in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that Many circuits have held, and we agree, that this statute permits a parent to recover attorneys’ fees after prevailing at the state administrative level by filing a separate suit in federal court solely for the that purpose. See Moore v. District of Columbia, 907 F.2d 165, 166 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, [498] U.S. [998], 111 S.Ct. 556, 112 L.Ed.2d 563 (1990), and cases cited. Johnson, 949 F.2d at 1003; see also Dell, 32 F.3d at 1063 (a parent may bring an independent suit in federal district court under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) for attorney fees, and “the great weight of judicial authority has held that a litigant can recover in the district court for attorneys’ fees both in that court and in the earlier administrative proceedings.”); McCartney C. v. Herrin Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 4, 21 F.3d 173, 174 (7th Cir.1994) (a parent “may bring an independent suit in federal district court under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) to obtain, pursuant to § 1415(e)(4)(B), reimbursement of the attorneys’ fees expended in obtaining that relief.”); Brown v. Griggsville Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 4, 12 F.3d 681, 683-84 (7th Cir.1993) (recognizing that although the language of the statute is ambiguous, the great weight of judicial authority had held that a litigant can recover in the district court for attorney fees incurred in actions in the courts and in the earlier state administrative proceedings). The legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress intended “prevailing parties” at administrative levels to obtain attorneys fees as well as parties who prevailed in judicial proceedings. See 131 Cong.Rec. H9, 966 (daily ed. Nov. 12, 1985) (remarks of Rep. Williams) (including prevailing in administrative proceedings as entitling a plaintiff to attorney fees). The Johnson court’s analysis of the attorneys fees provision continued by noting that “[t]he initial question is ... whether [the plaintiff] was a ‘prevailing party,’ that is, did [the plaintiff] ‘succeed on “any significant issue ... which achieve[d] some of the benefit [the plaintiff] sought’ ” in filing [the plaintiffs] due process complaint?” Johnson, 949 F.2d at 1003 (citing Texas State Teachers Ass’n v. Garland Ind. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-92, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 1493-94, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989), which in turn quotes Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir.1978)). The issue of whether or not the plaintiffs here were “prevailing parties” within the meaning of § 1415(e)(4)(B), however, is not presently before the court on the defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. The court therefore need not give any consideration at this time to the question of the degree to which any of the plaintiffs here were “prevailing parties” in the administrative proceedings for which they seek attorneys fees. 1. Fee claims versus judicial review What is of significance to the present litigation is that the question posed to the court in a fee-claim action is different from that posed in a judicial review of the substantive claim under the IDEA. In a fee-claim action, in deciding whether a party is entitled to attorneys fees, the Supreme Court has said that “the result is what matters.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. Thus, the degree of success determines the extent to which the claimant may recover attorney fees. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. at 1939 (part of test is whether the party “‘achieves some of the benefit the partly] sought in bringing suit,’” quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79 (1st Cir.1978)); Johnson, 949 F.2d at 1003 (noting that “ ‘purely technical or de minimis’ victory,” precludes award of attorneys fees, while “‘limited success’” may “justif[y] a significant reduction in an attorneys’ fee award.”). In fact, the Supreme Court stated that the “results obtained” are “crucial” to the determination of the extent to which a party is a “prevailing party” and hence crucial to the amount of fees that party is entitle to recover. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440, 103 S.Ct. at 1943 (“We hold that the extent of a plaintiffs success is a crucial factor in determining the proper amount of an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.”). However, the Supreme Court has also cautioned that an action for attorney fees “should not result in a second major litigation” revisiting the merits of the underlying action. Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163, 110 S.Ct. 2316, 2321, 110 L.Ed.2d 134 (1990) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437, 103 S.Ct. at 1941); Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 766, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2739, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) (quoting Hensley); Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 563, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 2549, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988) (quoting Hensley); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 901 n. 19, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1550 n. 19, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (quoting Hensley). By contrast, review of the administrative proceedings under the IDEA considers, first, whether the state has complied with the procedures of the Act, and, second, whether the IEP developed by the educational authorities will attain the goals of the Act in the ease of a particular child. Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ., 458 U.S. at 206-207, 102 S.Ct. at 3051. Thus, judicial review of administrative proceedings under the IDEA, although heavily concerned with procedural proprieties, is also intended to be a revisiting of the merits of the underlying litigation. Also of more significance are other distinctions courts have made between an action to recover attorneys fees and an action for review of the disposition of the underlying, substantive claim. In an action to recover attorney fees under provisions of the Equal Administration of Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), in which the claimant tried to tie the timeliness of his fee claim to the disposition of his substantive appeal rather than to the disposition of his fee claim, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that “a claim for attorney’s fees should be treated as a matter collateral to and independent of the merits of the litigation.” [Obin v. District No. 9 of the Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574, 583 (8th Cir.1981)]. The Supreme Court expressly approved of this characterization in White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment, 455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1168, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982). We find no rational basis for determining that a claim for attorneys’ fees is collateral to and independent of the merits for some purposes but not for others. United States v. Estridge, 797 F.2d 1454, 1459 (8th Cir.1986). The court therefore dismissed the appeal of the denial of attorney fees as untimely. Id. In White, the Supreme Court “held that a request for attorney’s fees is not inherently or necessarily subsumed by a decision on the merits, and that the issue is uniquely separable from the cause of action to be proved at trial.” Young v. Powell, 729 F.2d 563, 566 (8th Cir.1984) (citing White, 455 U.S. at 451, 102 S.Ct. at 1166). 2. Fee claims versus judicial review under the IDEA The IDEA itself makes it clear that under its provisions an action for attorneys fees and an action for judicial review of the administrative decision are entirely separate. The IDEA provides for judicial review of administrative proceedings as follows: Any party aggrieved by the findings and decision made under subsection (b) of this section who does not have the right to an appeal under subsection (e) of this section [which provides for an appeal to the state educational agency of a hearing and decision of a local educational agency or an intermediate educational unit], shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented pursuant to this section, which action may be brought in any State court without regard to the amount in controversy. In any action brought under this paragraph the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). Thus, the person who may seek judicial review under this provision is “any party aggrieved by the findings or decision made” in the administrative proceedings. Id. Jurisdiction for judicial review lies “in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States without regard to the amount in controversy.” Id. The action for attorneys fees, however, is authorized in another subsection of the IDEA, this time 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4). That provision of the IDEA provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (4)(A) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subsection without regard to the amount in controversy. (B) In any action or proceeding under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to the parents or guardian of a child or youth with a disability who is the prevailing party. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(A) & (B). Thus, section 1415(e)(4)(B) provides for a cause of action for attorney fees, not by “any aggrieved party,” but by a “prevailing party.” Jurisdiction over the action for attorneys fees lies not in either State or federal court, but, pursuant to § 1415(e)(4)(A), in the “district courts of the United States” and such jurisdiction is “without regard to the amount in controversy.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(A) & (B). Therefore, both the parties authorized to pursue the two kinds of actions, judicial review and an action for fees, and the court or courts authorized to hear them are different. As a further matter, the grounds upon which relief may be granted and the nature of the proceedings, or scope of review, differ between the two kinds of actions. In judicial review actions, the court “shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and, basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2). Some courts have described the review under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), as a modified trial de novo. Massachusetts Dep’t of Ed. v. David D., 475 U.S. 1140, 106 S.Ct. 1790, 90 L.Ed.2d 336 (1986); see also James v. Nashua Sch. Dist., 720 F.Supp. 1053, 1058 (D.N.H.1989) (finding “suit under section 1415(e)(2) is similar to a normal civil action in which all of the issues of the ease are tried de novo”). However, the character of the inquiry should not be overstated and does not change the action from one of judicial review. See, e.g., Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ., 458 U.S. at 206, 102 S.Ct. at 3051 (reviewing courts may not “substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.”); Spiegler v. District of Columbia, 866 F.2d 461, 465 (D.C.Cir.1989) (in deciding whether a § 1415(e)(2) action was more analogous to either an administrative appeal or to a de novo civil action, the court stated that “[w]e find that actions brought under section 1415(e)(2) of the [IDEA] are more analogous to appeals from administrative agencies than to causes of action ‘for which a limitation [period] is not otherwise specially prescribed’ ” at least in part because the hearing officer’s determinations are still afforded substantial deference). A fee-claim action under the IDEA is conducted on an entirely different basis from a judicial review of a prior decision. The court makes a determination, in its own discretion, of an entirely different set of factual and legal questions from those in a judicial review action, considering whether and to what extent the claimant is a “prevailing party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B); see, e.g., Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-35, 103 S.Ct. at 1939-40. There is no suggestion of deference to any prior decision in a fee-claim action. Most courts to consider the question, although not applying the statutory analysis above, have nonetheless concluded that an action for attorney fees is separate and different in kind from an action appealing the underlying administrative decision. See, e.g., Murphy v. Timberlane Regional Sch. Dist., 22 F.3d 1186, 1193 n. 9 (1st Cir.) (IDEA case distinguishing the substantive claim before it from an action based on a “derivative fee-shifting provision”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 484, 130 L.Ed.2d 396 (1994); Johnson, 949 F.2d at 1003 (prevailing party under IDEA may recover fees “by filing a separate suit in federal court solely for that purpose,” citing Moore, 907 F.2d at 166); Robert D. v. Sobel, 688 F.Supp. 861, 864 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (“There is no similarity or analogy between an action for attorney’s fees and costs, and an action to appeal a final administrative determination,” and finding that an action under § 1415(e)(2) is an administrative appeal, while § 1415(e)(4)(B) provides for a separate attorney fee claim action); Michael M. v. Board of Ed. of New York City Sch. Dist., 686 F.Supp. 995 (E.D.N.Y.1988) (“There is no persuasive reason ... to characterize for statute of limitations purposes actions brought under the [IDEA] for attorney’s fees in the same way as [IDEA] actions have been characterized [that seek to enforce educational rights].”); Bow Sch. Dist. v. Quentin W., 750 F.Supp. 546 (D.N.H.1990) (difference between judicial review action under § 1415(e)(2) and fee-claim action under § 1415(e)(4)(B) is “obvious” in that “[n]o aspect of a § 1415(e)(4)(B) action is appellate in nature.”). However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the only circuit court of appeals to consider directly the question of what statute of limitations applies to fee-claim actions under the IDEA, has consistently blurred the distinction between the two kinds of actions. In Brown v. Griggsville Community Unit Sch. Dist. No. 4, 12 F.3d 681, 683 (7th Cir.1993), that court first held that a parent who obtains relief under the IDEA may bring an independent suit in federal district court to obtain attorney fees authorized by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B). Subsequently, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals characterized Brown as holding “that a parent who without having to file a suit obtains relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., may bring an independent suit in federal district court undergo U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) to obtain, pursuant to § 1415(e)(4)(B), reimbursement of the attorney’s fees expended in obtaining relief nonjudicially.” McCartney C. v. Herrin Community Sch. Dist. No. 4, 21 F.3d 173, 174 (7th Cir.1994) (emphasis added). Yet, the decision in Brown makes no reference whatsoever to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) as the authority for an action to recover attorneys fees as provided under § 1415(e)(4)(B). Nonetheless, the misstatement of the holding in Brown has become dogma in the Seventh Circuit. Thus, in Dell, the court quoted McCartney C.’s misstatement of the holding in Brown. Dell, 32 F.3d at 1063. In the most recent fee-claim case under the IDEA in that circuit, the court described the plaintiff as having “filed an independent suit under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2) against [the local board of education] seeking recovery pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B) for attorney’s fees arising out of services rendered by [counsel in administrative proceedings].” Rosemary B. v. Board of Educ. of Community High Sch. Dist. No. 155, 52 F.3d 156, 158 (7th Cir.1995); see also James, 720 F.Supp. at 1057-58 (considering an action for attorney fees under § 1415(e)(4)(B) of the IDEA as being brought pursuant to § 1415(e)(2)). This view of a fee-claim action under the IDEA perceives it as a species of judicial review, a conception of the claim with which this court must respectfully disagree. An action for attorney fees under the IDEA is not brought as a judicial review action over which either state or federal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1415(e)(2), but as an independent action over which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to § 1415(e)(4)(A) & (B). 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(A) & (B). The court must now turn to consideration of the District’s and the Agency’s assertion that the plaintiffs’ actions for attorneys fees are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. D. The Statute Of Limitations For IDEA Attorneys Fees Actions The IDEA does not establish a statute of limitations for an action for judicial review or for attorneys fees. Dell, 32 F.3d at 1055-56. Worse yet for the certainty of litigants and the peace of mind of the courts, there is no uniformity among the decisions of courts as to what statute of limitations should be applicable to a fee-claim action under the IDEA. The court will survey the small group of cases that have addressed the question in some detail. However, the court must first consider the course it must take when a federal statute is silent as to the applicable statute of limitations. 1. The method for selecting the proper statute of limitations As this court noted at the beginning of this opinion, the Supreme Court has said that “ ‘[f]ew areas of the law stand in greater need of firmly defined, easily applied rules than does the subject of periods of limitations.’ ” Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985) (quoting Chardon v. Fumero Soto, 462 U.S. 650, 667, 103 S.Ct. 2611, 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 74 (1983) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting)). Experience teaches that strict adherence to time limitations “is the best guarantee of evenhanded administration of the law.” Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980). Time limitations “are not arbitrary obstacles to the vindication of just claims, and therefore they should not be given a grudging application. They protect important social interests in certainty, accuracy, and repose.” Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 920 F.2d 446, 452-53 (7th Cir.1990) (discussing the time limitations in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)). Thus, time requirements “for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular litigants.” Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 1726, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984). Notwithstanding the importance of defined time limitations to the evenhanded administration of justice, Congress with some frequency fails to provide a statute of limitations in federal legislation. See Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980). When “Congress has not established a time limitation for a federal cause of action, the settled practice has been to adopt a local time limitation as federal law if it is not inconsistent with federal law or policy to do so.” Wilson, 471 U.S. at 266-67, 105 S.Ct. at 1942 (footnote omitted); see also Tomanio, 446 U.S. at 484, 100 S.Ct. at 1795 (court must borrow “the state law of limitations governing an analogous cause of action”); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975) (when there is such a void in federal law, court must “borrow” statute of limitations from analogous state law); O’Sullivan v. Felix, 233 U.S. 318, 34 S.Ct. 596, 58 L.Ed. 980 (1914) (same). This process of borrowing is necessarily a substitute for the legislative process, and therefore “not a methodology that fits comfortably with the exercise of judicial authority,” Dell, 32 F.3d at 1058, and has been described as one that is “at best uncertain and at worst arbitrary.” McCartney, 21 F.3d at 174; see also Dell, 32 F.3d at 1058 (quoting McCartney). If available state law is less clearly analogous than another federal statute, however, courts may look instead to an analogous federal statute of limitations. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 171-72, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 2294-95, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). Courts may also look to other federal laws if the state statutes of limitations are “unsatisfactory vehicles” for enforcing federal law. Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U.S. 350, 355-56, 111 S.Ct. 2773, 2778-79, 115 L.Ed.2d 321 (1991); DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 161, 103 S.Ct. at 2289. A state statute of limitations is an “unsatisfactory” choice when it “would frustrate the polices embraced by the federal enactment.” Gilbertson, 501 U.S. at 355-56, 111 S.Ct. at 2778-79. Application of a statute of limitations drawn from federal law rather than from state law is still the exception rather than the rule, however. Id.; Reed v. United Transp. Union, 488 U.S. 319, 324, 109 S.Ct. 621, 625, 102 L.Ed.2d 665 (1989); Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., 483 U.S. 143, 147, 107 S.Ct. 2759, 2762, 97 L.Ed.2d 121 (1987). In selecting an analogous state statute from which to “borrow” a statute of limitations, the Supreme Court has established that the court must make a three-part inquiry in which the court must consider whether state law or federal law governs the characterization of [the] claim for statute of limitations purposes. If federal law applies, [the court] must next decide whether all [claims pursuant to the statute] should be characterized in the same way, or whether they should be evaluated differently depending upon the varying factual circumstances and legal theories presented in each individual case. Finally, we must characterize the essence of the claim in the pending case, and decide which state statute provides the most appropriate limiting principle. Wilson, 471 U.S. at 268, 105 S.Ct. at 1942-43. The court looks next to the decisions of other courts faced with the question of what statute of limitations is applicable to an IDEA fee-claim action. These decisions, this court finds, apply to a greater or lesser degree the inquiry required by Wilson in making then-selection of the appropriate statute of limitations. 2. Prior decisions determining the applicable statute of limitations Because the body of decisions determining the appropriate statute of limitations for IDEA fee-claim actions is relatively small, the court will consider each such decision in turn. Although the body of cases is small, these decisions select a surprising variety of statutes of limitations in terms of both sources and durations. The earliest case located by either the parties or the court to address the question at issue here was Robert D. v. Sobel, 688 F.Supp. 861 (S.D.N.Y.1988). In Robert D., the court, applying Wilson, selected as most appropriate N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214(2), which “provides that an action must be commenced within three years if it is: ‘an action to recover upon a liability, penalty or forfeiture created or imposed by statute.’ ” Robert D., 688 F.Supp. at 864. The court rejected the judicial review statute of limitations of four months found in N.Y.Educ.Law § 4404(3), previously chosen by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Adler by Adler v. Education Dep’t of State of N.Y., 760 F.2d 454, 457 (2d Cir.1985), as applicable to actions under § 1415(e)(2). In Adler, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had reasoned that an action under § 1415(e)(2) was essentially an appeal from an administrative proceeding, and the policy of the IDEA, to make an appropriate public education available to disabled children, indicated a short limitation period to avoid delays in terminating inappropriate educational placement. Adler, 760 F.2d at 457-59. The court in Robert D. found, however, that [t]he reasoning of the court in Adler ... does not apply to the case at bar. In that case the court was considering review of the Commissioner’s determination under See. 1415(e)(2), while this case involves solely an award of attorney’s fees under Sec. 1415(e)(4)(B). There is no similarity or analogy between an action for attorney’s fees and costs, and an action to appeal a final administrative determination. In addition, there is no policy implicated by applying a longer statute of limitations to an action solely to recover attorney’s fees. The placement of the handicapped child would not be implicated by an action for attorney’s fees incurred in the administrative proceeding under 1415(e)(4)(B) [sic], since the administrative proceeding would have resolved the issue of the child’s placement before the action for fees commenced. Robert D., 688 F.Supp. at 864. The following month, it was the turn of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to consider the question in Michael M. v. Board of Ed. of New York City Sch. Dist., 686 F.Supp. 995 (E.D.N.Y.1988). The court, applying the full three-part inquiry established by Wilson, found that “[t]he first element in a cause of action for attorney’s fees brought under the [IDEA] ..., 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4)(B), is that the claim results from an ‘action or proceeding brought under the [IDEA].’ This is a matter of federal law.” Michael M., 686 F.Supp. at 1001. Next, the court found that “tt]here is no persuasive reason ... to characterize for statute of limitations purposes actions brought under the [IDEA] for attorney’s fees in the same way as [IDEA] actions have been characterized [that seek to enforce educational rights].” Id. (citing Robert D., 688 F.Supp. at 864). The court therefore also rejected the application of the New York judicial review statute selected in Adler as applicable to an action under § 1415(e)(2) to enforce educational rights of disabled children to the attorneys fee claim before it. Id. The court went a step further, finding that “[t]he legal and policy arguments that support the holding in Adler do not support characterizing a separate action for attorney’s fees in the same way for statute of limitations purposes,” thus rejecting Adler’s assertion that a short, four-month statute of limitations was appropriate to obtain prompt revision of the educational treatment of a disabled child, because “[i]n an action for attorney’s fees speed is not of the essence.” Id. at 1001-2. The court observed that The needs and general welfare of the handicapped child would no longer be of concern, since the administrative proceeding would have resolved those issues before the action for fees commenced. Id. at 1002. Finding no analogous action for attorneys fees under New York education law, the court found that the closest applicable general statute of limitations was a three-year statute governing “an action to recover upon a liability ... created or imposed by statute,” thereby also selecting N.Y.C.P.L.R. 214(2), because the liability for attorneys fees was imposed by a federal statute without common-law basis. Id. The question was next presented to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire in James v. Nashua Sch. Dist., 720 F.Supp. 1053 (D.N.H.1989). In James, although the court apparently deemed both a judicial review action and a fee-claim action to be brought pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2), James, 720 F.Supp. at 1057-58, the court nonetheless concluded that New Hampshire’s three-year statute of limitations for personal injuries, N.H.R.S.A. 508:4 I, provided the appropriate statute of limitations. Id. at 1058. The court was troubled by the proposed 180-day statute of limitations applicable to complaints to the New Hampshire Human Rights Commission on the ground that the scope of review was not the same, and “ ‘[a] short statute of limitations would tend to negate Congressional intent to encourage fee petitions for proceedings brought prior to adoption of the statute.’ ” Id. at 1057 (quoting Michael M., 686 F.Supp. at 1002). For the same reasons, excessive brevity, the court rejected a one-year statute of limitations for sex discrimination actions. Id. at 1058. The court also based its choice of the three-year statute on the ground that an action under § 1415(e)(2) is a “modified trial de novo” dissimilar from a mere judicial review, and a three-year statute of limitations comported with federal policy under the IDEA, which had been amended to provide for attorneys fees awards with specific allowance of such claims by persons precluded for two years by the Smith decision from bringing such claims. Id. The court also found its selected period consonant, at least in duration, with the decisions in Michael M. and Robert D., albeit having chosen a different statute. Id. Finally, the court found its choice supported by analogous cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which borrow a personal injury statute. Id. The final district court decision this court will consider in detail is another, more recent decision, from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Bow Sch. Dist. v. Quentin W., 750 F.Supp. 546 (D.N.H.1990), which, however, did not decide the identical question presented here. Quentin W., was instead a decision selecting a thirty-day statute of limitations from the state’s provisions for review of administrative decisions for a judicial review action under § 1415(e)(2). Quentin W., 750 F.Supp. at 550. The decision is instructive in the distinctions the court drew between the question before it and the question before the court in James: In James, supra, plaintiffs brought an action under § 1415(e)(4)(B), which authorizes courts, in their discretion, to award attorneys’ fees to parents or guardians who prevail in an action under the [IDEA]. The court ruled that the state statute of limitations most analogous to such an action was RSA 508:4. However, a suit for attorneys’ fees obviously differs from an action under § 1415(e)(2). No aspect of a § 1415(e)(4)(B) action is appellate in nature; rather, it can only be classified as a personal action seeking money damages. Nothing prevents different provisions of a federal statute from being characterized differently for statute of limitations purposes. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. at 268, 105 S.Ct. at 1942. Therefore, the Court finds the reasoning of James inapplicable to the instant action. Quentin W., 750 F.Supp. at 549-550. Thus, the court, following its own application of Wilson to the question before it, chose a different statute of limitations as applicable to a judicial review action under § 1415(e)(2) from that previously chosen for a fee claim action under § 1415(e)(4)(B). Id. at 550. A few unpublished district court decisions widen the field of candidates for the appropriate statute of limitations for fee-claim actions under the IDEA. See Reed v. Mokena Sch. Dist. No. 159, 1994 WL 163989 (N.D.Ill. filed April 29, 1994) (in a decision rendered after McCartney, but before Dell, and cited favorably in the latter, the court rejected the limitation for fee claims found in the local rules of the court, choosing instead the same 120-day statute of limitations as applicable to both fee-claim actions and judicial review actions); Christine C. v. Seneca Grade Sch. Dist. No. 170, 1992 WL 220627 (N.D.Ill. filed Sept. 4, 1992) (adopting local rule’s 90-day limitation on applications for attorneys fees for attorney fee-claim cases under IDEA), decision on motion for reinstatement, 1993 WL 294021 (N.D.Ill. filed August 5, 1993) (denying reinstatement of case on basis that Panico, discussed below, which stated that a fee claim action and an administrative appeal “should be treated differently for statute of limitations purposes,” did not decide the applicable statute of limitations, nor create an inconsistency with the prior decision in this case, and plaintiffs motion did not meet standards of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)); Panico v. Board of Ed. of Evergreen Park Community Sch. Dist. 231, 1992 WL 211051 (N.D.Ill. filed August 26, 1992) (refusing to apply 120-day statute of limitations borrowed from state statute for appeal of administrative decisions as “too short,” but not deciding on the proper statute of limitations on the ground that the parties had not adequately briefed the issue). As the relative frequency with which federal district courts in Illinois have considered the question might suggest, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is the only federal appellate court to determine the statute of limitations for IDEA attorneys fees claims. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has thrice applied the same statute of limitations to fee claim actions as it has to appeals of administrative proceedings, and always in cases in which Illinois law provided the appropriate body of state law from which to select the limitations period. In the first such decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals perceived an overlap between an action for fees and a judicial review making it appropriate, the court found, to apply the same statute of limitations to both claims. Dell, 32 F.3d at 1068. The court observed that [i]n awarding attorneys’ fees, the district court must review not only proceedings in its own court but also proceedings in a state administrative environment with which it may not be very familiar. A return to this quagmire months after adjudication of the merits would result in a needless expenditure of judicial energy. Although the promptness of the decision may not be as important here as in other IDEA situations, both the school district and the parents still have an interest— along with the attorney — in the expeditious resolution of this matter. Moreover, by the end of the administrative proceedings and any subsequent judicial review, the parties ought to have a good idea of the extent and quality of representation, and long-term deferral of the issue simply serves no salutary purpose. These considerations suggest that there is considerable wisdom in the approach suggested by Judge Kocoras, one of our colleagues on the district bench of the Northern District of Illinois, that it was preferable to “apply a statute of limitations which finds some relevance to the administration of the IDEA itself.” Reed v. Mokena School District No. 159, No. 94 C 476, 1994 WL 163989, at *3 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 29, 1994) (unpublished opinion). Accordingly, we believe that the most prudent course is to utilize the 129-day limitation found in the Illinois School Code as the governing statute of limitations. We believe that the use of this limitations period ... best promotes the purposes of the IDEA. Dell, 32 F.3d at 1064—63. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has followed its determination in Dell, without further comment or analysis, on two other occasions. See Rosemary B. v. Board of Educ. of Community High Sch. Dist. No. 155, 52 F.3d 156, 158 (7th Cir.1995) (finding Dell foreclosed further discussion of the applicable statute of limitations, and deciding instead whether plaintiffs suit was filed within 120 days of its accrual, and holding that it was not); Reed v. Mokena Sch. Dist. No. 159, 41 F.3d 1153, 1154 (7th Cir.1994) (the contention of the appellant that the 120-day statute of limitations was improper was “foreclosed by our decision in Dell v. Board of Education, 32 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir.1994).”). However, because this court finds the reasoning of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals flawed and its analytical criteria inappropriate, the court, in the absence of a determination from our own Circuit Court of Appeals, will proceed to an independent analysis of the question of what statute of limitations properly applies to an action for attorney fees under the IDEA. 3. The proper statute of limitations here a. The parties’ proffers The District and the Agency assert that the proper statute of limitations for a fee-claim action under the IDEA must be “borrowed” from Iowa’s Administrative Procedures Act, Iowa Code Ch. 17. Specifically, they offer Iowa Code § 17A.19(3), which provides that If a party files an application under section 17A.16, subsection 2, for rehearing with the agency, the petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after that application has been denied or deemed denied. If a party does not file an application under section 17A.16, subsection 2, for rehearing, the petition must be filed within thirty days after the issuance of the agency’s final decision in that contested case. If an application for rehearing is granted, the petition for review must be filed within thirty days after the issuance of the agency’s final decision on rehearing. In cases involving a petition for judicial review of agency action other than the decision in a contested case, the petition may be filed at any time petitioner is aggrieved or adversely affect