Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37505
| D.D.C. | 2012Background
- Lena Johnson and Brenda Smith, parents of E.J. and B.S., respectively, have children with disabilities receiving IDEA services in DC Public Schools.
- They prevailed in related administrative proceedings and were previously awarded attorney’s fees in Cox v. District of Columbia (GK).
- They seek reimbursement of attorney’s fees incurred after Cox, totaling $2,160.73.
- DCPS opposes some fee requests, challenging high hourly rates and alleging certain tasks are clerical/overhead not recoverable.
- The court applies IDEA fee-shifting standards, determining lodestar reasonable rate and hours, with adjustments and potential supplemental briefing on clerical work and pre-judgment interest.
- Judgment entered for a modest amount ($244.70) pending potential supplemental briefing on pre-judgment interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of fees and rates | Jester’s rates are reasonable and justified by complexity. | Rates should align with DCPS cap ($300) and consider clerical tasks as overhead. | Rates adjusted: $400/h through 2009, $410/h for 2010; paralegal $125/h; clerical issues unresolved pending brief. |
| Clerical tasks reimbursement | Some tasks may be recoverable if attorney performed legal work, not purely clerical. | Clerical tasks should be absorbed as overhead and not billed at attorney rates. | Court allows review; directs supplemental submission by 3/30/2012 to distinguish lawyer-necessary work from clerical tasks. |
| Other overhead costs (copies, postage, mileage) | Costs like copying and mileage are recoverable as part of reasonable attorney fees. | Discounted or limited rates appropriate for routine costs. | Some costs approved at reduced rates (e.g., 0.15 per page for copies; mileage at GSA rates); travel and postage treated as recoverable where routinely billed. |
| Pre-judgment interest on fees | Pre-judgment interest may be recoverable under DC law. | Authority and applicability unclear; sovereign immunity concerns; requires further briefing. | Briefing required; judgment entered for $244.70 with instructions for supplemental briefing on pre-judgment interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henseny v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method for determining reasonable fees)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (elements for reasonable hourly rate: billing practices, skill, and prevailing market rates)
- Lopez v. District of Columbia, 383 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D.D.C. 2005) (clerical work generally not reimbursable; overhead considerations)
- Agapito v. District of Columbia, 525 F. Supp. 2d 150 (D.D.C. 2007) (court rejected notion of binding ‘this Court’; context on rate determination)
- Holbrook v. District of Columbia, 305 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2004) (pre-judgment interest consideration in IDEA fee awards)