McClam v. Government of the District of Columbia
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99518
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- McClam and her son N.M. pursued an IDEA due process hearing for N.M.'s education needs in Oct–Nov 2009; they prevailed in the administrative proceeding.
- Plaintiffs submitted a attorney’s fees and costs petition totaling $44,038.32; District paid $31,333.65 on the first invoice (Apr 27, 2010) and $2,724.78 on May 13, 2011.
- District reduced or disallowed portions of fees by excluding time prior to Aug 13, 2009 and after Nov 22, 2009, discounting hourly rates (to $300 before Dec 9, 2009 and $400 thereafter) and decreasing copying from $0.25 to $0.15 per page; mileage and fax charges were refused.
- Plaintiffs seek the remaining $13,150.36; the District’s opposition and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment request resolution of fees and costs.
- Court analyzes entitlement, reasonable rates, and itemized hours under Rule 56 and the lodestar framework; the District’s challenge centers on whether Laffey rates should apply and what constitutes reasonable IDEA-related fees.
- Court will grant in part and deny in part the fee petition, setting rates at $300/hour through Dec 9, 2009 and $400/hour thereafter, approving certain pre/post‑filing time and copying/fax costs, and ordering a supplemental invoice for remaining unpaid amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rate for attorney fees. | McClam argues Laffey high-end rates apply. | District contends IDEA cases are not complex; rates should match DC guidelines ($300/$400). | Rates set at $300/hour through 12/9/2009 and $400/hour thereafter. |
| Chargeability of pre- and post-HOD time entries. | All time related to the underlying litigation is chargeable. | Entries outside the filing/HEO window should be discounted. | Chargeable: entries before Aug 13, 2009 and after Nov 22, 2009 are payable. |
| Costs for copying, faxing, mileage. | Costs for copying/faxing/mileage are recoverable. | Copying rate should be discounted and some costs disallowed. | Copying and faxing reimbursed at $0.15/page; mileage approved. |
| Prejudgment interest on fees. | Kaseman supports prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees. | Not appropriate in a fee-determination action. | Prejudgment interest denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (establishes lodestar framework and reasonableness of rates)
- Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (guides market-rate relief and prevailing-rate evidence)
- Rooths v. Dist. of Columbia, 2011 WL 3529292 (D.D.C. 2011) ( IDEA fees not always at Laffey rates; courts consider complexity)
- Kaseman v. Dist. of Columbia, 329 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2004) (awards costs/fees with reasonable copying rates; prejudgment interest context)
- Muldrow v. Re-Direct, Inc., 397 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2005) (evaluates reasonableness of fee requests in routine cases)