Blackman Ex Rel. Blackman v. District of Columbia
394 U.S. App. D.C. 191
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- This appeal challenges an attorneys' fee award under IDEA totaling $1,454,030.22 to the plaintiffs' class counsel against the District of Columbia.
- The District argues the federal statutory fee cap of $4,000 applies to this class action and would limit fees.
- The district court held the cap does not apply to class actions; fees may exceed $4,000 per class member so long as the total respects the cap per member.
- The case began as Blackman v. DC, a July 1997 class action, later consolidated with Jones v. DC, with a consent decree on remedies in 2006.
- The second fee petition (2006–2008) sought fees for monitoring/compliance; after briefing and a hearing, the district court awarded $1,454,032.22 in January 2010.
- The DC Circuit affirmed the district court’s interpretation that the cap does not apply to class actions and discussed the cap per-student versus per-action framing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the $4,000 cap applies to IDEA class actions | Blackman/Jones: cap applies per student; class actions allowed unlimited aggregate fees | DC: cap applies per action; fees capped at $4,000 for each action | Cap does not apply to class actions; per-student cap is preferred under statutory text |
| How to read the cap—per student or per action | Cap should be read per student; aggregate fees for thousands of class members allowed | Cap should be read per action; $4,000 limit for the entire action | Court adopts per-student interpretation as more consistent with the statute and policy concerns |
| Whether the law-of-the-case/waiver issues affect review | Law-of-the-case should bar re-litigation of the district court’s construction | Law-of-the-case does not bind the appellate court; not forfeited | Law-of-the-case does not preclude merits review; court independently interprets statute |
| Is IDEA class actions an appropriate vehicle for individualized relief | IDEA requires individualized remedies; class actions are appropriate for systemic relief | IDEA favors individual remedies; class actions are often unsuitable | Court notes potential lack of cohesion in IDEA class actions; does not foreclose the award but questions suitability of class relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class actions require cohesiveness for certification under Rule 23(b)(2))
- First Nat'l Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1924) (Dictionary Act meaning depends on evident intent of statute)
- Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (IDEA remedies require individualized assessments and relief)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 262 F.R.D. 481 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (IDEA class actions may be inappropriate where remedies are individualized)
- Petties v. District of Columbia, 538 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2008) (fee cap issue in prior ruling; district court decision)