Bucher v. District of Columbia
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38815
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- This action seeks reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and costs under IDEA, with the District of Columbia as the defendant.
- J.B. is a nine-year-old with ADHD, auditory processing, and sensory integration disorders; he has strong cognitive abilities but difficulties with attention and behavior.
- DCPS initially denied eligibility for special education; a hearing officer later found J.B. eligible but DCPS failed to conduct timely eligibility determinations and did not provide proper notice.
- The Hearing Officer awarded tuition reimbursement, tutoring, evaluations, and that J.B. continue in nonpublic school for subsequent years; the petition for attorneys’ fees followed.
- Plaintiffs sought $50,155 in fees and costs; DCPS reimbursed $26,436, leaving $21,939.53 in dispute for J.B.’s case; the court ultimately awarded $21,344.00 in fees and costs after adjustments.
- Procedural posture: Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment; the court granted in part, reducing hours and rates, and awarding the remaining fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ hourly rates are reasonable. | Alvarez’s rate ($300 pre-4/24/2009; $350 post) aligns with the Laffey Matrix. | DCPS Guidelines cap at $300/hour; Laffey is inappropriate for IDEA matters. | Laffey rates apply; $300/$350 rates deemed reasonable for Alvarez. |
| Whether specific charges for clerical/paralegal work are compensable at attorney rates. | Counsel performed tasks without support staff; these are not clerical | Such tasks are clerical or paralegal and should be billed accordingly | Certain clerical tasks are compensable at attorney rate; no categorical bar to paralegal rates without justification. |
| Whether pre-hearing activities charged more than a year before the hearing are compensable. | Time spent preparing for enrollment and DCPS obligations related to the hearing. | Too remote in time absent extraordinary relation to proceedings. | Independent review supports compensation but 25% (3.25 hours) of 13 hours billed before 4/24/2009 were disallowed. |
| Whether vague or duplicative entries justify recovery of hours. | Entries sufficiently indicate work related to the Due Process Complaint; duplications are not actual duplicate work. | Vague entries are acceptable if related; twelve entries deemed non-duplicative; no reduction for duplications beyond stated adjustments. | |
| Whether routine travel costs are compensable and at what rate. | Travel time is compensable; should be at half rate. | Travel is routine overhead and not reimbursable. | Travel time compensated at half rate; reductions applied to four hours of travel time as per circuit precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (fee rates; basis for reasonableness of hours and rates)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (adoption of Laffey Matrix; prevailing market rates)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 696 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2010) (reasonableness of fees; IDEA fee shifting)
- Cox v. District of Columbia, 754 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2010) (application of Laffey rates to IDEA administrative proceedings; rejection of Agapito)
- Holbrook v. District of Columbia, 305 F. Supp.2d 41 (D.D.C. 2004) (standards for determining reasonableness of hours; detailed invoicing)
- Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec’y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (reasonableness standard; detailed billing evidence)
- Bailey v. District of Columbia, 839 F. Supp. 888 (D.D.C. 1993) (clerical and paralegal work; staffing considerations)
- Agapito v. District of Columbia, 525 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2007) (DCPS Guidelines used in IDEA fee awards (depicted and rejected in this decision))