Flood Ex Rel. T.F. v. District of Columbia
172 F. Supp. 3d 197
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff (mother) prevailed in an IDEA administrative hearing requiring DCPS to fund an independent comprehensive evaluation of her son T.F., who had longstanding behavioral/educational problems and whose repeated requests for evaluation had been denied.
- Plaintiff sued under the IDEA to recover attorneys’ fees and costs for the administrative victory and sought 68.8 hours at the USAO Laffey Matrix rate ($460/hr for 11–19 years’ experience) plus $710 in costs.
- The District proposed a reduced rate (three-quarters of Laffey, $345/hr) and the Magistrate Judge recommended the reduced rate and half-rate for three hours travel, producing a ~25% cut.
- Plaintiff objected, arguing her evidence showed prevailing market rates for IDEA work in D.C. justify full USAO Laffey rates.
- The District Court applied D.C. Circuit precedent (Eley), held plaintiff met her burden with affidavits and recent fee awards showing rates in line with USAO Laffey, found the District failed to rebut that showing, and awarded 65.8 non-travel hours at $460/hr plus 3 travel hours at $230/hr and $710 costs (total $31,668).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper hourly rate for IDEA fee award | Plaintiff: prevailing market for IDEA work in D.C. supports full USAO Laffey rate ($460/hr) based on attorney affidavits and recent fee awards | District: IDEA administrative work is a different, less complex submarket; three-quarters of Laffey is appropriate (many prior decisions so hold) | Court: Plaintiff met burden to show rate is in line with prevailing market; District failed to rebut; full USAO Laffey rate awarded for non-travel hours |
| Role of case complexity in setting rate | Plaintiff: rate should reflect prevailing market, complexity reflected in hours billed, not automatic rate reduction | District: many IDEA cases are non-complex; judges often reduce Laffey rates for such cases | Court: Rejects categorical rate reduction based on perceived simplicity; Eley and Perdue counsel using market-rate approach and not double-counting complexity |
| Evidentiary burden to justify Laffey rates | Plaintiff: submitted attorney declarations and evidence of recent fee awards showing collection of Laffey rates | District: plaintiff affidavits are self-serving and insufficient; cites many prior awards using reduced rates | Court: Affidavits plus recent fee awards are sufficient under Eley; burden shifted to District to provide specific contrary evidence, which it did not do |
| Travel time billing rate | Plaintiff: billed travel time at full rate | District: travel should be reimbursed at reduced rate | Held: travel reimbursed at half the hourly rate (three hours at $230/hr), as agreed previously |
Key Cases Cited
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (clarifies burden to show requested rates align with prevailing market in IDEA cases)
- Salazar ex rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discusses submarket evidence and fee matrices)
- Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (addresses presumption of fee awards absent special circumstances)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (set forth evidence categories for prevailing market rates)
- Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (establishes Laffey Matrix for complex federal litigation rates)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (complexity presumed reflected in hours; market rate governs hourly rate determination)