McNeil v. District of Columbia
233 F. Supp. 3d 150
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs (parents of a special-education student) prevailed at administrative level under the IDEA and obtained an award of attorney’s fees and costs in a subsequent district-court fee action.
- The Court previously awarded $44,815.73 in attorney’s fees and $2,252.74 in costs by applying 75% of the USAO Laffey matrix and a 10% reduction for limited success.
- Plaintiffs moved for additional “fees-on-fees” — attorney’s fees and costs incurred litigating the prior fee action — requesting $36,335.75 in fees and $414.59 in costs.
- Defendant (the District) argued (1) the appropriate rate should be 50% of the Laffey matrix or capped at the date of the first judgment, (2) fees incurred after the summary-judgment order are too attenuated (fees-on-fees-on-fees), and (3) any award should be reduced for Plaintiffs’ limited success in the original fee action.
- The Court (Judge Contreras) declined to reopen the previously determined market-rate question, capped recovery at 75% of the Laffey rates but limited recovery to counsel’s actual billed rate when lower, found the billed hours reasonable (including post-judgment fee-enforcement work), and applied percentage reductions for limited success at different phases.
- Final award: $36,940.20 in fees and $414.59 in costs (granting the motion in part and denying in part).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of fees-on-fees (and later fees) | Fees spent litigating fee petitions are recoverable under IDEA and necessary to vindicate fee award | Post-award enforcement fees (fees-on-fees-on-fees) are too attenuated and not compensable | Court: Fees-on-fees and subsequent enforcement work may be awarded; no categorical bar; compensable if reasonably devoted to obtaining fees |
| Appropriate hourly rate | Use counsel’s billed rate ($425/$390 actual) or current market evidence supporting higher rates | Use 50% of the Laffey matrix (lower market ceiling) | Court: Maintain prior approach — cap at 75% of USAO Laffey matrix; but where counsel actually billed less (here $390) award limited to that lower billed rate |
| Reasonableness of hours, including post-judgment time | All billed hours are reasonable and necessary (including work after Dec 29, 2015) | Hours after the Court’s summary-judgment order are too attenuated from underlying IDEA claim | Court: Hours before and after Dec 29, 2015 were reasonable; awarded specified attorney and paralegal hours (including post-judgment) but scrutinized invoices and excluded ‘‘no charge’’ entries |
| Reduction for limited success | Minimal or smaller percentage reduction; paralegal time should not be reduced | Apply larger reduction proportional to limited recovery in initial fee petition | Court: Applied a 14% reduction to fees covering the period through the initial fee judgment and an 8% reduction to fees for subsequent fee-enforcement work; paralegal time was not exempt from reductions |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (authorizes recovery of fees for time reasonably devoted to obtaining attorney’s fees in IDEA cases)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours-times-rate lodestar and adjustment for degree of success)
- Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1990) (treat a case as an inclusive whole to avoid unending fee litigation; caution against denying fees for time spent obtaining them)
- Reed v. District of Columbia, 843 F.3d 517 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (permits awarding the same hourly rate for fee petitions as for underlying IDEA litigation without re-litigating the market rate)
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discusses difficulty of establishing prevailing market rate and use of Laffey matrix guidance)
- Dickens v. Friendship-Edison P.C.S., 724 F. Supp. 2d 113 (D.D.C. 2010) (discounted billed rates may be reimbursed only if attorney shows non-economic/public-spirited motivation)