Rooths v. District of Columbia
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87659
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Rooths, mother of M.R., filed an October 3, 2008 IDEA administrative complaint against DCPS alleging denial of FAPE and lack of participation in placement decisions.
- DCPS placed M.R. in the requested private placement on October 22, 2008 before the administrative hearing.
- Hearing Officer denied compensatory education in November 2008; reconsideration in December 2008 granted denial of compensatory education but acknowledged earlier denial of FAPE.
- Rooths later challenged the Hearing Officer’s decision in federal court; the case was dismissed with prejudice after DCPS agreed to convene a meeting leading to compensatory education for M.R.
- Rooths, now prevailing in part, seeks attorneys’ fees; the court must determine the reasonableness of fees and expenses; magistrate judge recommended nearly full fees, which the district court partially denied and awarded a total of $23,350.42.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party status for fees | Rooths prevailed on at least some relief. | DCPS challenges the extent of relief and prevailing status. | Rooths is a prevailing party for fee purposes; fee entitlement awarded. |
| Reasonableness of attorney rates | Enhanced Laffey Matrix rates are reasonable for IDEA work. | Enhanced rates exceed local norms; use USAO Laffey rates. | Rates reduced to three-quarters of USAO Laffey rates; Meehan at $98/hr; other adjustments as stated. |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Hours were reasonably expended on the case. | Some hours unrelated to the instant case and improper time entries. | Exclude pre-September 2, 2008 work and certain time entries; remaining hours compensable. |
| Recovery of costs and routine expenses | Costs for copying, faxing, postage should be recoverable. | Such costs may be limited. | Routine costs reimbursable under IDEA fee awards. |
| Treatment of pre- and post-petition work and staffing | All billed tasks relate to the IDEA action and fee petition. | Some tasks involve unrelated August 2008 complaint or improper staffing. | Disallow certain pre-September 2, 2008 work and certain staffing/time entries; remaining work compensated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (establishes lodestar method and reasonableness standards for fee awards)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (limits use of non-market or settlement evidence to prove reasonable rates)
- Blackman v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 1999) (discusses applicability of Laffey Matrix in IDEA cases)
- In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (requires detailed contemporaneous billing records and descriptions)
- Agapito v. District of Columbia, 477 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2007) (disallows high-end rates for relatively straightforward IDEA matters)
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 329 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2004) (fee awards include ordinary costs and reasonable rates in IDEA litigation)