Irving v. D.C. Public Schools
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112331
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Irving sought $9,418.30 in IDEA attorney’s fees for administrative proceedings on behalf of her child; defendants paid $2,426.55, leaving $6,003.55 unpaid.
- Child is a DC Public Schools IDEA student; administrative due process complaint filed Dec 3, 2008 alleging failure to provide FAPE.
- Plaintiff was represented by the Law Offices of Christopher N. Anwah.
- Hearing Officer Determination granted plaintiff the relief requested; defendants removed an ensuing fee dispute to this court.
- Court applies a two-step framework: first determine prevailing party; second determine reasonableness of fees; uses Laffey Matrix to set reasonable rates; awards reduced fees due to deficiencies and inapplicable charges.
- Court partially grants the motion, denying portions of fees and reducing the total award to $4,750.20, with $2,323.65 remaining unpaid by DCPS
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party determination | Irving prevailed administratively and should recover. | Prevailing party status contested or not adequately proven. | Irving is prevailing party; relief awarded. |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Hours reasonable and detailed enough. | Hours not properly detailed by attorney; some clerical or remote charges excessive. | Hours curtailed; overall reduction to reflect deficiencies. |
| Identifying the attorney performing each task | User summary suffices; not required to name every attorney for each task. | DCPS Guidelines require identification by attorney. | Court requires more detail; adopts 25% overall reduction for insufficiency. |
| Applicability of the Laffey Matrix vs DCPS guidelines | Laffey Matrix should apply or Adjusted Laffey Matrix. | DCPS guidelines govern rates for DC actions. | Laffey Matrix (US Attorney’s Office version) applied; DCPS guidelines rejected. |
| Fee cap applicability | Cap lifted for post-2008 proceedings; no cap issue here. | Cap still applies to pre-March 11, 2009 proceedings; cannot exceed $4,000. | Cap applies to pre-2009 proceeding; award reduced but not barred entirely; balance subject to cap. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing party standard under federal fee-shifting statutes)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonable fee determined by hours multiplied by rate; adjust for partial success)
- Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d 962 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (limits on clerical tasks; supports reducing fees for non-billable work)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (evidence of prevailing market rates; presumption of reasonableness of rates)
- Nat'l Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec'y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (detailed time records required; control of fee requests)
- In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (allowances for insufficient documentation; manipulate reductions)
- Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (purely clerical tasks not reimbursable; overhead considerations)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (Tenth Cir. 2010) (arbitration standards analogy (example))
- Jenkins (Missouri v. Jenkins), 491 U.S. 274 (U.S. 1989) (distinction between clerical work and substantive legal work)
- Blackman v. District of Columbia, 633 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (fee cap framework and availability of awards above cap)