302 F. Supp. 3d 213
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Theresa James, on behalf of her granddaughter V.J., prevailed in IDEA litigation and administrative remand, securing evaluations, IEP revisions, compensatory services, and declaratory relief.
- James sought $93,676.78 in attorneys' fees and costs for two D.C. practitioners: Nicholas Ostrem (administrative work) and Douglas Tyrka (federal litigation). Billing supported hourly rates aligned with the USAO Matrix ($395 for Ostrem; $516 for Tyrka).
- The District of Columbia did not dispute prevailing-party status or hours billed but challenged the reasonableness of the requested hourly rates and copying costs, proposing a cap of 75% of the USAO (or Laffey) matrix rates and $0.15 per page for copying.
- The central dispute was whether the USAO Matrix rates (full value) represent the prevailing market rate for IDEA work in D.C., whether to use current or historical rates, and the proper rate for fees-on-fees and travel time.
- The court found Plaintiff’s market-rate evidence (attorney declarations, a survey, and selected prior awards) insufficient to prove the full USAO Matrix as the prevailing rate, credited the District’s settlement-payment statistics showing frequent acceptance of 75% rates, and applied 75% of the current USAO Matrix rates (with half-rate for travel) and $0.15 per page copying.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper prevailing market hourly rate | Requested full USAO Matrix rates for counsel (current rates) as prevailing market for IDEA work | USAO Matrix rates are unsupported; prevailing rate is 75% of applicable USAO/Laffey matrix; reduce fees accordingly | Court: prevailing market rate is 75% of the current USAO Matrix for comparable-experience attorneys |
| Current vs. historical rates (compensate for delay) | Apply current USAO Matrix rates because payment was delayed years, so current rates prevent loss of value | Use historical matrix rates applicable when services were performed | Court: apply current USAO Matrix rates to account for multi-year delay (no windfall) |
| Rate for fees-on-fees (time spent litigating fee petition) | Fees-on-fees should use same prevailing market rate as substantive work | Proposes lower (50%) rate for fees-on-fees | Court: apply same prevailing rate (75% of USAO Matrix) to fees-on-fees in absence of evidence of market difference |
| Reasonableness of copying costs | $0.25 per page billed (per counsel) | $0.15 per page is reasonable based on district practice | Court: award copying costs at $0.15 per page; other expenses awarded in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir.) (IDEA fee-shifting entitlement and prevailing party standard)
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir.) (IDEA fee award elements; need for evidence beyond counsel affidavits to show prevailing market rate)
- Reed v. District of Columbia, 843 F.3d 517 (D.C. Cir.) (two-part framework for lodestar and limits on relying on Laffey/USAO matrices absent complexity or independent proof)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (burden-shifting and presumptions in fee awards)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (U.S.) (permitting use of current rates to compensate delay in fee awards)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (U.S.) (discussion of basing awards on current rates or adjusting historical rates for delay)
- Murray v. Weinberger, 741 F.2d 1423 (D.C. Cir.) (guidance on using current rates vs. delay multipliers)