Rapu v. D.C. Public Schools
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68253
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Rap u sought IDEA fees after a favorable HOD for a student in DCPS; disputed remaining fees between $4,134.10 and total $5,410.10.
- Plaintiff originally sought $5,410.10 in fees; DCPS reimbursed $1,119.60, leaving $4,134.10 unpaid.
- Plaintiff filed a DC Superior Court action Aug. 20, 2009 to recover the remaining fees; DCPS removed the case to federal court Sept. 18, 2009.
- Amended complaint (Mar. 15, 2010) sought $5,410.10 minus already-paid amount plus fees for the instant action; DCPS remained as defendant.
- On Jun. 1, 2010, the Court dismissed DCPS as a non-suitable entity, leaving DC as the sole defendant; July 30, 2010 motion treated as a fee petition.
- Court will grant in part and deny in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment treated as a request for attorneys’ fees and costs under IDEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing rate standard for IDEA fees | Laffey Matrix governs prevailing market rates | DCPS Guidelines should apply | Court uses Laffey Matrix as prevailing rate benchmark |
| Attorney skill/reputation evidence | Affidavits establish each timekeeper’s qualifications | Some timekeepers lack DC bar evidence | Rates adjusted per timekeeper; some treated as paralegals; Hamlett reduced by 20% |
| Reasonableness of hours charged | Hours reasonable and necessary for hearing | Some tasks are clerical or remote in time | Excluded clerical entries and remote/insufficient entries; allowable paralegal tasks adjusted |
| Clerical vs. professional work | Some tasks are attorney work | Many clerical tasks improper for attorney rates | Clerical entries excluded; paralegal entries allowed at applicable rates |
| Fees for instant litigation | Fees incurred in litigating the fee petition are recoverable | Fees for petition are not warranted given submission deficiencies | No additional award for instant litigation beyond underlying fees |
| Overall fee award | Demanded full claimed amount | Request over-inclusive given documentation gaps | Award $2,265.30 in fees after adjustments; $1,119.60 already paid; total approved $2,265.30; no extra for litigation fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonable fees based on hours multiplied by an hourly rate; factor for reasonableness of hours and rates)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 696 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C. 2010) (guides reasonableness of fees in IDEA actions; uses similar analysis to Hensley)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (establishes market-rate inquiry and fee-shifting principles)
- Gray v. District of Columbia, 779 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2011) (fee petitions require adequate detail; court may adjust rates/hours accordingly)
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 329 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2004) (invoices need not itemize every minute; sufficiency of detail for reimbursement)