77 F. Supp. 3d 201
D.D.C.2015Background
- Eight plaintiffs (one later dismissed) prevailed in IDEA administrative proceedings against the District of Columbia and sought recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs in federal court under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B).
- Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and served the District; the District failed to respond, the clerk entered default, and the Court ordered the District to show cause (to no avail).
- Plaintiffs sought $505,891.86 in fees (after dismissing one plaintiff’s claim) plus fees for litigating the fee petition and a $4,000/month penalty for delayed payment.
- The Court found entry of default judgment appropriate because the District made no timely response or showing of a meritorious defense.
- The Court held plaintiffs are prevailing parties but declined to award fees immediately because (1) the submitted invoice did not aggregate hours by attorney and by case, and (2) the requested hourly rates (Adjusted Laffey) were unsupported and excessive for these non-complex, administrative-level IDEA cases.
- The Court directed plaintiffs to submit revised, case-by-case billing totals and applied the U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix as the presumptive maximum rate for the relevant years (with specified dollar amounts), reserved ruling on fees-on-fees, and denied the penalty request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether default judgment is warranted | District was properly served but did not respond; default appropriate | No response or defense raised | Default judgment against District granted due to complete nonresponse |
| Whether plaintiffs are prevailing parties under IDEA | Plaintiffs prevailed in administrative HODs and seek fees | District did not contest prevailing-party status | Plaintiffs deemed prevailing parties via default admissions |
| Whether submitted hours are reasonable | Invoice with line items reflects reasonable, reduced hours | District did not rebut because it did not respond | Invoice insufficient: plaintiffs must resubmit aggregated hours by attorney and by case before fees awarded |
| Appropriate hourly rates | Plaintiffs sought Adjusted Laffey Matrix rates ($640, $567 requested) and current (not historic) rates | District did not contest but Court must independently assess market rates | Adjusted Laffey rates rejected; Court will use U.S. Attorney’s Office Laffey Matrix rates for the years services were rendered and directed plaintiffs to refile invoices using those rates |
| Fees for litigating fee petition (fees-on-fees) | Plaintiffs seek fees-on-fees for obtaining attorneys’ fees | No opposition raised | Fees-on-fees permitted in IDEA but limited; Court will apply a lower rate consistent with prior rulings and ordered briefed/accounting |
| Request for $4,000/month penalty for delayed payment | Plaintiffs requested a penalty for District’s alleged payment delays | District did not object but Rule 54(c) limits relief to amounts pleaded; no prior fee petition to District shown | Penalty denied: not requested in complaint and no evidence of prior fee request or payment delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee awards are hours reasonably expended times a reasonable hourly rate)
- Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir.) (burden to show prevailing market rates and attorney credentials)
- Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 444 F.3d 637 (D.C. Cir.) (fees-on-fees recoverable under IDEA)
- Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C.) (origin of the Laffey Matrix rates)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (Supreme Court) (courts may adjust rates for delay in payment)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia, 696 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.D.C.) (two-step inquiry: prevailing party and reasonableness of fees)