Kelsey v. District of Columbia
219 F. Supp. 3d 197
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Amber Kelsey (plaintiff) prevailed at the IDEA administrative level and sought attorney’s fees for that proceeding; she later appealed the amount of compensatory speech therapy awarded and separately pursued fees-on-fees in federal court.
- At administrative level she was awarded 96 hours of speech therapy; she had argued for 480 hours. Plaintiff then sought $46,597.50 in fees (at $450/hr) for the administrative proceeding and later sought additional fees for litigating the fee petition (fees-on-fees).
- The Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending: (1) adopt $450/hr then reduce the rate to $225/hr (half Laffey) for fee-litigation; (2) halve certain hours (Jul 23, 2013–Feb 3, 2014) as they partly supported an unsuccessful substantive appeal; and (3) apply a 15% global reduction for limited success—totaling $29,947.50.
- Kelsey objected to the R&R on five grounds: correct Laffey rate and rejection of $450/hr, characterization of time labeled “drafting the Complaint,” the 50% reduction for the Jul 2013–Feb 2014 period, and the 15% global reduction.
- The District Court (Howell, C.J.) sustained some objections and overruled others: it reaffirmed the $450/hr rate (relying on prior acceptance and discount vs. Laffey), rejected the 50% halving of the Laffey rate, rejected relitigation of the rate, but accepted the 50% reduction to certain hours and accepted the 15% global reduction.
- The court awarded fees-on-fees: reimbursement for 121.3 hours (plus 9.4 hours for the instant motion) at $450/hr, travel 2.4 hours at $225/hr, then reduced by 15%, yielding $50,451.75.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rate for fees-on-fees | $450/hr is reasonable and previously adopted; actual Laffey is higher so no reduction warranted | Court may set reasonable rate; some cases halve Laffey for fee-litigation | Court sustained $450/hr (rejected R&R’s 50% Laffey reduction) because rate was previously accepted and discounted from Laffey |
| Whether to apply a 50% reduction of Laffey rates for fee litigation | No; relitigation of rate is unnecessary and complexity argument improper | Fee-litigation often merits half-Laffey in this District | Court rejected automatic half-Laffey rule and kept $450/hr |
| Characterization/compensability of 22.4 hours labeled “drafting the Complaint” | Only 6.9 hours were complaint drafting; remainder essential to fee claim | Time period encompassed both fee and substantive matters; mixed allocation appropriate | Court treated the entries as mixed and addressed via proportional reduction (see next issue) |
| Reduction of hours for Jul 23, 2013–Feb 3, 2014 (55.4 hrs) | All tasks in period were necessary to fee claim; cannot reduce fees for work that also benefited unsuccessful claims | Much of the time related to unsuccessful substantive appeal; Hensley supports reduction | Court applied a 50% reduction to that 55.4-hour block (plaintiff’s objection overruled) |
| Application of 15% global reduction for limited success | No basis: hours were reasonable and a further cut double-counts reductions | Hensley permits adjustment based on degree of success; plaintiff only 85% successful on original fee motion | Court applied the 15% global reduction (objection overruled), consistent with prior reduction on original fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir.) (sets three-part fee reasonableness framework)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (burden and factors for hourly rate)
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir.) (fees-on-fees recoverable)
- Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 672 F.2d 42 (D.C. Cir.) (supporting fees-for-fees principle)
- American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 994 F.2d 20 (D.C. Cir.) (fees-on-fees essential to fee-shifting goals)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court) (reduction for partial success; reasonableness inquiry)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (Supreme Court) (complexity generally reflected in hours, not separate rate adjustment)
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (Supreme Court) (prevailing plaintiffs ordinarily recover fees)
- Price v. District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 112 (D.C. Cir.) (IDEA fee-shifting interpretation)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 470 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir.) (consider overall success in fee awards)