Reed v. District of Columbia
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21876
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Parents (Appellants) who prevailed in separate IDEA administrative hearings sought statutory attorneys’ fees and costs in district court, including fees-on-fees for litigating the fee claims.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended excluding time billed to "settlement conferences" as non-reimbursable resolution sessions and recommended using fractional Laffey rates; the District Court adopted both recommendations in part and awarded reduced fees.
- Appellants argued (1) the excluded settlement-conference hours were "sham" resolution sessions and thus reimbursable, and (2) the prevailing market rate for IDEA litigation aligns with the LSI/USAO Laffey Matrix (or otherwise is higher than the court awarded).
- The District Court declined to apply full Laffey rates, instead applying roughly 75% of USAO Laffey rates for most claimants, and later applied the same rate to the fees-on-fees award.
- On appeal the D.C. Circuit: reversed the exclusion of certain settlement-conference hours and remanded for recalculation; affirmed the District Court’s refusal to adopt full Laffey rates here and affirmed use of the same rate for fees-on-fees; and declined to consider two new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hours billed to "settlement conferences" are nonreimbursable resolution-session time | Reed: meetings were "sham" resolution sessions lacking required participants and thus reimbursable | D.C.: plaintiffs failed to show the meetings lacked IDEA-required participants, so time should be excluded | Court: District Court abused its discretion excluding those hours; remanded to determine reimbursable amount |
| Whether IDEA litigation qualifies as "complex federal litigation" such that Laffey Matrix rates govern prevailing market rate | Reed: IDEA cases are as complex as other matters to which Laffey applies; affidavits support applying LSI Laffey rates | D.C.: Appellants failed to demonstrate IDEA fits Laffey’s category; Laffey not presumptively applicable | Court: Affirmed District Court — appellants did not meet burden to show IDEA is "complex federal litigation" for Laffey purposes |
| Whether the District Court erred in applying 75% Laffey rates rather than full Laffey rates | Reed: full Laffey (LSI) rates are prevailing rates and necessary to attract competent counsel | D.C.: reduced rate appropriate based on record and precedent in IDEA cases | Court: Affirmed reduced rate; appellants forfeited new arguments on appeal and record insufficient to mandate full Laffey rates |
| Whether fees-on-fees should be awarded at a different (higher) prevailing rate | Reed: fees-on-fees market rate aligns with Laffey/should be higher | D.C.: no evidence fees-on-fees rate differs from administrative-fee rate; same rate applied | Court: Affirmed using same rate for fees-on-fees because appellants submitted no evidence of a distinct market rate |
Key Cases Cited
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (framework for IDEA fee awards and discussion of Laffey applicability)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (origin of the Laffey Matrix for complex federal litigation)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (appellate consideration of Laffey proceedings)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (fee-shifting standards discussed)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (prevailing market rate and use of Laffey matrix in fee determinations)
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (fees-on-fees recoverable in IDEA matters)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (reasonable fee must reflect prevailing market rates and attract competent counsel)
- Reed v. District of Columbia, 134 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D.D.C. 2015) (district court opinion below rejecting full Laffey rates and excluding settlement-conference hours)
- Radtke v. Caschetta, 822 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (district court abused discretion in reducing fee award when record supported claimed damages)