McAllister v. District of Columbia, 160 F. Supp. 3d 273

Plaintiffs are parents in 23 consolidated IDEA administrative cases against DCPS; each administrative matter obtained relief and plaintiffs sought attorney’s fees for those proceedings.
Plaintiffs’ counsel (Douglas Tyrka) originally sought $386,139.52 for administrative fees using enhanced (LSI) Laffey rates; the Court previously awarded $171,103.70 after reducing rates and halving the overall award for limited success.
Plaintiffs then sought “fees on fees” (attorney’s fees and costs for litigating the fee petition in district court) totaling $41,480.25, based on a $640/hour (enhanced Laffey) rate.
The District argued the fee-on-fees request was excessive, urging the Court to apply 50% of historic Laffey rates for fee litigation rather than current enhanced rates.
The Court found the fee-litigation was routine (not complex), that 50% of the applicable Laffey rates is the appropriate rate for uncomplicated IDEA fee litigation, and that 63.25 hours billed were reasonable.
Applying 50% of the Laffey rates and further reducing the fee-on-fees award by 50% to account for plaintiffs’ limited success in the underlying proceedings, the Court awarded $7,351.57 in attorney’s fees plus $440.25 in costs (total $7,791.82).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs may recover fees for litigating their fee petition (fees-on-fees)	Fees-on-fees are recoverable as part of prevailing party relief under IDEA; plaintiffs sought full reimbursement	District concedes fees-on-fees are discretionary but challenges amount and rate	Fees-on-fees are recoverable; awarded in part (court granted fee-on-fees subject to rate and proportional reductions)
Appropriate hourly rate for fee litigation	Use current enhanced Laffey rate ($640/hr) as market rate for counsel’s experience	Use lower rate: 50% of historic Laffey rates for the year services were rendered	Court adopted 50% of applicable Laffey rates for non-complex IDEA fee litigation (rejected full enhanced rate)
Reasonableness of hours billed (63.25 hours)	Hours documented and necessary for fee litigation	District did not dispute the specific hours but preserved overall reasonableness challenge	Court independently reviewed and found 63.25 hours reasonable; no hours reduction imposed
Whether award should be reduced for limited success in underlying action	Plaintiffs argued full compensation is needed to avoid chilling representation; sought full fees-on-fees	District urged reduction because plaintiffs recovered less than claimed in underlying proceedings	Court reduced fee-on-fees by 50% to reflect plaintiffs’ limited success (plaintiffs had recovered ~44% of requested underlying fees)

Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (fees-on-fees recoverable where time reasonably devoted to obtaining fees)
Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 672 F.2d 42 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (court may award fees for time spent obtaining attorney’s fees)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and reduction for limited success)
Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (plaintiff’s burden to prove reasonableness of rates and hours)
Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (addressing burden to justify counsel’s hourly rate)
Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1990) (limits on fee awards when applicant does not prevail on fee litigation issues)
Means v. District of Columbia, 999 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 2013) (50% of Laffey rate appropriate for uncomplicated IDEA fee litigation)
Garvin v. Gov’t of D.C., 910 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D.D.C. 2012) (same)
Wright v. District of Columbia, 883 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2012) (same)