Jones v. District of Columbia
153 F. Supp. 3d 114
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- Jones prevailed at an administrative IDEA hearing and obtained relief including an independent assessment, reevaluation, and compensatory education; she then sued in federal court to recover attorneys’ fees under IDEA.
- A Magistrate Judge recommended, and the Court adopted, an award of $45,272.77 in attorneys’ fees and costs for the administrative proceedings; the District largely did not contest the hourly rate then proposed ($345/hour, 3/4 of USAO Laffey).
- Jones moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) for $10,468.50 in additional fees and costs (fees-on-fees) for litigating her successful fee petition in federal court: 43.3 hours at $230/hour plus $475 in costs.
- The District conceded entitlement to fees-on-fees generally and did not contest hours billed, but argued (1) fees for Jones’s subsequent motion (the fees-on-fees motion) were too attenuated to be compensable and (2) the $230/hour rate was not adequately proven as reasonable (urging a lower rate).
- The Court rejected the District’s attempt to relitigate the applicable hourly rate and held fees incurred in obtaining fees are recoverable; it awarded Jones $10,391.50 for 42.3 hours at $230/hour (and one hour at $187.50 for travel) plus $475 costs, declining further reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees incurred litigating a successful fee petition (fees-on-fees) are recoverable under IDEA | Jones: fees-on-fees are recoverable; follow-on fee litigation is part of the same action and necessary to vindicate fee rights | D.C.: certain later fees (7.5 hrs for the instant fees-on-fees motion) are too attenuated or ‘‘fees-on-fees-on-fees’’ and not compensable | Court: Fees-on-fees are recoverable; the instant motion was reasonably related and compensable |
| Whether plaintiff must re-establish the reasonableness of the hourly rate for the fees-on-fees phase | Jones: no relitigation required; rate established earlier applies because it’s the same action | D.C.: Jones failed to produce additional evidence that the $230/hour rate is prevailing for this phase | Court: No need to relitigate rate at each stage; earlier determination and community evidence suffice |
| Whether the proposed $230/hour (50% of full USAO Laffey) is reasonable | Jones: voluntarily discounted rate (below prior $345 rate) is reasonable and supported by district practice and prior decisions | D.C.: rate is too high; suggests lower alternatives (e.g., 50% of counsel’s ordinary rate or $172.50) | Court: $230/hour is reasonable in this jurisdiction for fees-on-fees and entitled to strong presumption of reasonableness |
| Appropriate compensation for attorney travel time | Jones: travel time billed at $230/hour (half-Laffey discount applied generally) | D.C.: travel time should be half of the already reduced rate (would yield lower amount) | Court: travel time compensated at $187.50 (half of $375 previously approved rate); additional requested $42.50 denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir.) (explains lodestar framework and discusses Laffey Matrix applicability)
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (fees-on-fees are recoverable where time is reasonably devoted to obtaining attorney’s fees)
- Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 672 F.2d 42 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (authorizes awarding additional fees for time reasonably devoted to obtaining fees)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar presumptively adequate; complexity generally reflected in hours not rate)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990) (rejects relitigation of prerequisites for fees-on-fees to avoid multiplicative litigation)
- Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (prevailing plaintiffs should ordinarily recover attorney’s fees absent special circumstances)