Jorie Wimbish et.al. v. District of Columbia
251 F. Supp. 3d 187
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Jorie Wimbish enrolled her daughter J.W., eligible for special education under IDEA, at Stuart Hall (private boarding school) for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 school years.
- Administrative hearing (Mar. 2015) found DCPS denied J.W. a FAPE for 2014–2015 and ordered 50% reimbursement for Stuart Hall; parties disputed whether a June 2014 IEP was final.
- In Aug. 2015 DCPS informed Wimbish J.W. was no longer eligible for special education and developed a §504 plan without her; Wimbish filed an administrative complaint challenging removal from special education.
- Wimbish moved in district court (Sept. 2015) for a stay-put injunction under IDEA §1415, seeking DCPS funding of J.W.’s placement at Stuart Hall during litigation; the court granted a stay-put requiring DCPS to fund 100% of Stuart Hall costs during pendency.
- Wimbish then moved for attorneys’ fees under IDEA for work securing the stay-put; the parties agreed she is a prevailing parent but disputed what constituted a "reasonable hourly rate."
- The court limited the fee request by reserving fees for fee-motion preparation (to be addressed later) but found prevailing market rates and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $50,795.85.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wimbish is a prevailing party for stay-put | Wimbish obtained a stay-put order and thus is prevailing | District did not dispute prevailing-party status | Held for Wimbish; she is a prevailing parent for stay-put portion |
| Appropriate method to establish prevailing market hourly rates | Apply full USAO Laffey Matrix rates or show IDEA practitioners charge comparable rates | Argues rates are too high; proposes 75% of USAO Laffey Matrix | Court accepts plaintiff's market-evidence approach and evaluates prevailing community rates |
| Whether evidence supports full USAO Laffey rates | Affidavits from IDEA practitioners + recent D.D.C. fee awards show full Laffey rates prevail | Cites prior D.D.C. cases applying 75% Laffey; challenges affidavits as showing requested not received rates | Held for Wimbish: affidavits and recent post-Eley awards suffice; District failed to rebut with equally specific contrary evidence |
| Whether multiplier or fees for fee-motion should be awarded now | Requests full recovery of hours including time on fee motion | Opposes full fees; agrees travel paid half-rate; challenges some rates | Court awards full Laffey hourly rates for stay-put work, reduces travel to half-rate, and reserves decision on fees-for-fees (fee-motion preparation) for supplemental motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (sets lodestar framework and discusses criteria for reasonable hourly rates in IDEA fee awards)
- Flood v. District of Columbia, 172 F. Supp. 3d 197 (D.D.C. 2016) (District court awarded full USAO Laffey rates in IDEA fees analysis)
- Douglas v. District of Columbia, 67 F. Supp. 3d 36 (D.D.C. 2014) (court recognized obtaining a stay-put order makes a parent a prevailing party)
- Merrick v. District of Columbia, 134 F. Supp. 3d 328 (D.D.C. 2015) (discusses Laffey Matrix use in IDEA fee awards)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (fee applicant bears burden; prevailing party standard for market-rate rebuttal evidence)
- Reed v. District of Columbia, 843 F.3d 517 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (addresses approaches to proving prevailing market rates in IDEA litigation)