202 F. Supp. 3d 121
D.D.C.2016Background
- Dr. Jennifer Campbell sued the District of Columbia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after her termination; a jury in December 2015 found for Campbell on a procedural due process (stigma/liberty) claim and awarded $250,000 in compensatory damages; the court added stipulated financial damages.
- Campbell moved under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for attorney’s fees and costs and sought a 50% enhancement multiplier; the District agreed she was a prevailing party but challenged hours, some billing entries, the enhancement, and certain costs.
- The parties agreed the 2015–2016 USAO (Laffey) Matrix rates would be used to determine reasonable hourly rates; the main disputes concerned exercise of billing judgment, duplicative/clerical/travel entries, work on related Superior Court proceedings, demonstrative exhibits, and recoverable costs (including expert fees and travel).
- Campbell submitted detailed billing records, supplemental affidavits explaining excluded time, and made several voluntary reductions in her billed hours and costs in reply; the District sought a 30% across-the-board reduction for insufficient exclusions and other specific disallowances.
- The Court reviewed entries, accepted the Laffey rates, found most of Campbell’s hours reasonable after targeted reductions (including for duplicative trial attendance, some administrative entries, and duplicate billing), denied an enhancement, disallowed expert fees, but awarded modest travel costs.
- The Court awarded $314,782.30 in attorney’s fees and, after disallowing $5,600 in expert fees, $9,443.75 in costs — totaling $324,226.05 — and denied the requested multiplier.
Issues
| Issue | Campbell’s Argument | District’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campbell is a prevailing party eligible for § 1988 fees | She prevailed at trial on § 1983 due process claim and is entitled to fees | Did not dispute prevailing-party status | Court: Campbell is a prevailing party; fees are available |
| Proper method/rates for fee calculation | Use 2015–2016 Laffey Matrix current rates; lodestar supports requested fees | Did not contest Laffey but challenged reasonableness of hours | Court: Applied Laffey rates; lodestar used as starting point |
| Exercise of billing judgment; reductions for excessive/clerical/duplicative time | Submitted billing records, supplemental affidavit, and voluntary exclusions; many entries compensable (some at paralegal rates) | Counsel failed to exclude excessive hours; seeks 30% reduction and disallowance of clerical, travel at full rates, demonstratives, and duplicative trial attendance | Court: Found billing-judgment description adequate; denied 30% cut; reduced certain entries (paralegal rates for clerical work, cut travel rate where corrected, reduced duplicative trial time and specific demonstrative entries, and deleted duplicate entries) |
| Whether enhancement multiplier is appropriate | Sought 50% enhancement due to novelty, risk, and exceptional success | Enhancement improper; novelty/contingency risk already reflected in lodestar; Perdue/Dague bar contingency enhancement | Court: Denied enhancement; lodestar presumed reasonable; novelty and contingency not grounds for multiplier |
| Recoverable costs (expert fees, demonstratives, consulting, travel, supplies) | Sought experts' damage reports, demonstratives, trial consulting, travel, office supplies | Argued expert fees and certain categories not recoverable; challenged other costs | Court: Disallowed expert fees and miscellaneous demonstratives/consulting/supplies (Campbell did not defend them); allowed modest travel costs; total costs reduced accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (defines prevailing party for fee-shifting statutes)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar: reasonable hours × reasonable rate; exclude excessive or duplicative hours)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (standards for reasonable hourly rates and evidence required)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (enhancement multipliers are rare; lodestar presumptively reasonable; need specific evidence to enhance)
- Missouri v. Jenkins ex rel. Agyei, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (lodestar adjustments and compensable non-fee expenses; examples of compensable tasks)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (use of Laffey Matrix as evidence of prevailing market rates)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (origin of Laffey Matrix and approach to awarding attorney’s fees)