Merrick v. District of Columbia
134 F. Supp. 3d 328
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Tamecka Merrick pursued IDEA relief for her deaf, emotionally disabled son (R.W.) after alleged failures by DCPS to evaluate, identify, provide an appropriate IEP, and place him appropriately; the hearing officer awarded the relief Merrick sought (residential placement and compensatory education) but not on every discrete claim theory.
- Plaintiff’s attorneys (solo practitioners Bergeron and Roth) billed 269.2 hours and sought $136,044.18 in fees and costs for the administrative and appellate work following a successful due-process hearing.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended awarding $64,127.43 after (a) disallowing certain hours, (b) classifying some time as clerical at reduced rates, (c) cutting attorney hourly rate to 75% of the USAO Laffey Matrix ($510 → $382.50), and (d) applying a 10% reduction for partial success and a 15% reduction for unnecessary work.
- Merrick objected to most reductions and supplemented the record after Eley v. D.C., submitting affidavits from local IDEA practitioners about prevailing rates. DC did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s report.
- The district court reviewed de novo and: rejected the 10% partial-success cut; disallowed 24.8 hours for unnecessary motions and filings; allowed 3.9 hours for a February 2014 IEP meeting (because it was a continuation of the mandated post-order IEP); adopted the full USAO Laffey Matrix rate of $510/hour for counsel’s legal work; awarded reduced rates for clerical tasks; and entered judgment for $107,555.43.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 10% reduction is warranted because plaintiff did not prevail on every claim | Merrick: no reduction — she obtained all the relief sought at the administrative level | DC: adopt Magistrate Judge’s 10% reduction for failure to succeed on all claims | Court: rejected 10% reduction because relief obtained matched relief sought and unsuccessful theories could not have yielded greater relief |
| Whether certain counsel hours (motions to amend, motions to expedite/continue, amended complaint) are compensable | Merrick: hours were necessary given case complexity and juvenile custody/education issues | DC: adopt Magistrate Judge’s view that many filings were unnecessary; fees should be reduced | Court: disallowed 24.8 hours as unnecessary due to vague entries and Hearing Officer denials |
| Whether fees for a Feb. 2014 IEP meeting are recoverable under 20 U.S.C. §1415(i)(3)(D)(ii) | Merrick: the Feb. meeting was a continuation of the court-ordered IEP and thus convened as a result of the administrative proceeding | DC: Magistrate found the mandated IEP occurred earlier and recommended denying fees for Feb. meeting | Court: allowed fees for 3.9 hours because February meeting was a continuation triggered by dispute after the mandated IEP |
| Proper hourly rate for plaintiff’s counsel (use of USAO Laffey Matrix; any reduction) | Merrick: full USAO Laffey Matrix rate ($510) is prevailing market for comparable IDEA work; submitted affidavits and fee orders | DC: did not object to Magistrate’s report but underlying recommendation cut Laffey by 25% due to perceived low complexity | Court: held plaintiff met burden under Eley; adopted $510/hour (full USAO Laffey Matrix) and refused a 25% complexity-based reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (fee applicant bears burden to demonstrate requested rates align with prevailing community rates; types of admissible evidence described)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and principles for reducing fees when relief is limited compared to scope of litigation)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (factors for determining reasonable hourly rate and Laffey Matrix as useful starting point)
- Goos v. National Ass'n of Realtors, 68 F.3d 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (unsuccessful claim that could not have yielded additional relief is not independent basis for fee reduction)
- In re North, 59 F.3d 184 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (fee applicant bears burden to prove hours and rates are reasonable; documentation standards)