Salazar Ex Rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia
420 U.S. App. D.C. 403
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- This is an appeal from the D.D.C. district court’s awards of attorneys’ fees and expenses for Plaintiffs’ counsel’s work monitoring and enforcing a 1999 Settlement Order in a certified § 1983 Medicaid class action (Salazar v. D.C.).
- The Settlement Order specified fixed, CPI-adjusted rates for certain "monitoring" tasks (Paragraphs 64–65) but left rates for other enforcement/appeals work (Paragraph 66) unspecified.
- Plaintiffs submitted fee applications for work performed 2010–2012; the district court partially granted and partially denied the requests, awarding roughly $655,588 for 2011 work and $522,991 for 2012 work after specific reductions.
- The District appealed, arguing (1) the district court should have applied across-the-board percentage cuts to challenged billing instead of targeted reductions; (2) the district court erred in using the LSI-updated Laffey Matrix to set hourly rates rather than the USAO (All-Items CPI) Laffey update; and (3) the district court improperly awarded fees for counsel’s time spent on a third-party appeal.
- The D.C. Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (and legal standard de novo) and affirmed: it found the district court reasonably assessed hours, permissibly adopted the LSI Laffey rates based on the record, and reasonably awarded fees for work on the related third-party appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Salazar: detailed time entries justified; targeted reductions appropriate | D.C.: excessive/vague billing warrants uniform across-the-board reductions (20% for 2011, 15% for 2012) | Court: district court did not abuse discretion; targeted reductions and line-item adjustments were reasonable |
| Proper rate index for unspecified rates | Salazar: LSI-updated Laffey Matrix reflects legal-services inflation and matches market evidence | D.C.: USAO (All-Items CPI) Laffey update is the preferable index | Court: affirmed LSI Laffey use; plaintiffs produced ample evidence and LSI was reasonable in context |
| Waiver / law-of-the-case as to rate index | Salazar: prior rulings adopting LSI bind the District | D.C.: may challenge LSI application to these later years | Held: law-of-the-case does not bar challenge; court reached merits and affirmed LSI use |
| Fees for work on third-party appeal | Salazar: time was necessary to obtain information essential to Settlement claims | D.C.: District did not appear in that appeal and should not pay | Court: awarding fees for that related appeal time was appropriate given the necessity of the information |
Key Cases Cited
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983) (original Laffey rate schedule establishing baseline rates)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (affirming aspects of the Laffey schedule)
- Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (discussing fee-shifting analysis and Laffey adjustments)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (three-part fee analysis and burden of proof on fee applicants)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (district courts’ discretion in fee reasonableness)
- Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc) (government defendants do not justify lower fee awards)
- Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (examining appropriate market/submarket and use of Laffey matrices)