Cox v. District of Columbia
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129951
| D.D.C. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees and costs under IDEA for two separate Due Process Complaints (B.S. and E.J.) against DCPS, prevailing after hearing officers ordered placement at High Road Middle School and funding of related services.
- DCPS delays and failures allegedly deprived B.S. and E.J. of timely evaluations, appropriate IEPs, and suitable placements, resulting in extended periods without FAPE.
- Hearing Officers found egregious violations of IDEA/IDIEA standards in both cases, including delays in evaluation, improper placement, and failure to conduct FBAs or provide mandated services.
- Plaintiffs filed fee petitions; DCPS paid partial amounts, leaving disputed fees and costs for certain entries and items.
- Court should determine reasonableness of hours and rates, and award pre- and post-hearing fees where work was reasonably related to the administrative proceedings.
- Defendant argues for DCPS guideline rates and challenges specific charges as unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the plaintiffs entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees under IDEA? | Smith and Johnson seek reasonable fees for prevailing parties. | DCPS disputes rates and some charges as unreasonable. | Yes; fees awarded as reasonable under IDEA. |
| Are Laffey Matrix rates applicable to IDEA administrative proceedings against DCPS? | Laffey rates reflect prevailing market rates for complex federal litigation. | DCPS guidelines should govern rates (lower cap). | Laffey Matrix rates apply; rates set at $400 for Jester and $125 for paralegal. |
| Are clerical activities recoverable at attorney rates? | Clerical tasks performed by counsel are reasonably charged at attorney rates where necessary. | Clerical tasks should not be billed at attorney rates. | Yes; clerical tasks charged at attorney rate are reasonable. |
| Are pre-hearing charges reasonably related to the hearings? | Work done in advance of hearings is reasonable if tied to the hearing. | Advance charges should be clearly linked to the hearing. | Yes; pre-hearing charges are reasonable. |
| Are vague billing descriptions recoverable? | Invoices need not disclose exact minutes for each activity. | Entries are too vague. | Yes; entries described as related to the matter are reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (fee schedule; evolving market rates for attorneys in federal matters)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (establishes admissible use of market-rate fee awards; supports Laffey Matrix adoption)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 696 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2010) (affirms use of Laffey Matrix for IDEA-related fees; discusses reasonableness of rates in this district)
- District of Columbia v. Jeppsen, 686 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2010) (updates to Laffey Matrix; supports prevailing market-rate approach)