951 F. Supp. 2d 47
D.D.C.2013Background
- This is a DC District Court fee dispute under 42 U.S.C. §1988 arising from Harvey’s §1983 damages judgment against DC.
- Plaintiff, as estate representative, sought fees and costs; DC opposed, proposing a reduced figure.
- Court previously held Harvey succeeded on key merits and awarded partial judgment in 2012–2013.
- Parties disputed hours, rates, travel, mediation, and other expenses; discovery motions were denied as moot.
- Court ultimately awarded $1,118,976.30 in fees and costs and denied additional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fee award as prevailing party | Harvey prevailed on §1983 claim | DC challenged degree of success | Harvey is prevailing party; fee award allowed |
| Appropriate hourly rates under Laffey matrix | Use current Laffey rates with delay adjustment | Rates contested or limited by case law | Apply current Laffey rates with delay adjustment |
| Allocation of hours between District and Symbral claims | Most hours relate to District; interrelated claims justify proportional allocation | Defendant should bear more of the shared hours | 50% reduction for time tied to both defendants; separate apportionment where possible |
| Compensability of travel time and mediation costs | Travel time and mediation costs are recoverable as part of fees | Travel time limited; some mediation costs non-compensable | Travel time reduced to half-rate; mediation costs largely allowed; some denied |
| Recovery of costs and expert fees under §1988 | Costs and certain expenses, including some computer research, are recoverable | Expert fees not recoverable under §1988; some costs disallowed | Most costs allowed with reductions; expert fees denied; some expenses halved |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (set out lodestar and entitlement principles under §1988)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (guides reasonableness and proportionate fee determinations)
- Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (U.S. 1989) (establishes prevailing party and fee-shifting framework)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 130 S. Ct. 1662 (U.S. 2010) (limits windfalls; governs lodestar adjustments for delay and adjustments)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1989) (discusses recoverable expenses as part of attorney’s fees)