A.S. v. District of Columbia
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12308
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- A.S. was found eligible for special education under IDEA in 2008 with Specific Learning Disability and Other Health Impairment headings.
- A.S. attended a charter school in 2008-2009 but behavioral and academic difficulties led to a private Kingsbury placement beginning September 2009.
- An MDT/IEP meeting in February 2009 added ADHD to A.S.’s classification but did not develop goals addressing ADHD.
- Plaintiffs filed a due process complaint on April 29, 2010; DCPS conducted additional assessments and hearings followed in June/July 2010.
- Hearing Officer found some denial of FAPE related to the February 2009 IEP and the December 2009 IEP/placement; retroactive funding was awarded for half of the 2009-10 Kingsbury tuition; DCPS reimbursed $12,776.85, leaving a balance sought of $49,709.22.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking the remaining fees and costs; the court granted in part with reductions for partial success, remote IEP-meeting charges, and billing-rate adjustments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party and degree of success | Plaintiffs achieved substantial success | Plaintiffs were only partially successful | Partial success; 50% overall fee reduction applied |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Hours were reasonably expended for the litigation | Some hours are too remote or unrelated | Disallow IEP-meeting-related hours; remote-time hours retained if tied to hearing |
| Attorneys’ hourly rates | Laffey Matrix rates are appropriate for this complex IDEA case | DCPS guidelines rates should apply for uncomplicated hearings | Laffey Matrix rates used; rates for some paralegals adjusted downward for lack of support |
| Charging for IEP meetings under IDEA statute | Some IEP-meeting charges were permissible | Fees for IEP meetings held outside the administrative process are disallowed | Disallowed portions related to pre-hearing/IEP meetings under 1415(i)(3)(D)(ii) |
| Costs and other disallowances | Costs should not be reduced beyond the fee reduction | Certain costs are disallowed under DCPS guidelines | Costs reduced by 50% consistent with fee reduction; DCPS guidelines not adopted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (basis for fee-shifting and partial success adjustments)
- Texas State Teachers Assoc. v. Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782 (U.S. 1989) (reasonableness of fees and degree of success guidance)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (establishes DC fee standards via the Laffey Matrix)