Allen v. Dc
Civil Action No. 2000-0591
D.D.C.Jun 16, 2017Background
- This DC District Court case concerns Keith Allen et al. v. District of Columbia, focusing on post-judgment fees, costs, and interest across multiple related cases.
- Judge Harvey prepared an Appendix to a Memorandum Opinion containing detailed calculations of fees, costs, and post-judgment interest due under the court’s prior R&R.
- The Court analyzes remaining fees, costs, and interest for each identified case (e.g., Abraham, AC (Clark), Adams, Allen, Bradley, Isaac, Jones, McDowell, Thomas, Wingfield).
- Discrepancies are noted between Judge Harvey’s calculations and the Court’s recalculation, including a minor arithmetic adjustment in one section and adjustments for post-judgment payments.
- The District’s payments are reviewed against the Judgment amounts, with the Court determining the total due and identifying any overpayments or misapplied payments.
- The Court ultimately sets forth the final amounts due for each case, including remaining fees, costs, and interest, and provides instructions on payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are remaining fees, costs, and interest properly calculated | Allen plaintiffs contend remaining amounts are correctly totaled by Judge Harvey. | District argues different calculations and uses fee caps and interest rules variably. | The court adopts corrected totals and clarifies interest due on full judgments. |
| Is interest calculated correctly under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 | Plaintiffs dispute some rates and post-judgment payment deductions. | District contends rates and deductions support its amounts. | Interest is calculated on full judgments with appropriate rates; post-judgment payments are accounted for. |
| Should the District receive credit for post-judgment payments | Plaintiffs argue post-judgment payments were not fully or properly credited. | District argues credits were applied per its report. | Credits are applied as per the court’s reconciliation; remaining balances reflect proper credits. |
| Any requested additional fees or costs beyond Judge Harvey’s figures | Plaintiffs seek additional fees/costs in several cases (e.g., Adams, AC Clark, Bradley). | District argues no further amounts beyond Harvey’s figures. | The court rejects most requested increases; in Bradley, an additional $20,000 in fees was found due. |
| Are final totals and allocations consistent across all cases | Plaintiffs argue totals should reflect all accrued interest and payments consistently. | District maintains its payment accounting is accurate for most cases. | Final per-case totals are established with explicit allocations of fees, costs, and interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jefferson v. Milvets Sys. Tech., Inc., 986 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1997) (interest accrual method under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 guidance)
- AC (Clark) v. DC, N/A (N/A) (reliance on 28 U.S.C. § 1961 interest framework (note: provided for weighting in notes))
- Bradley v. DC, N/A (N/A) (example calculations referenced in the appendix notes)