Taylor v. District of Columbia , 134 F. Supp. 3d 58 ( 2015 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
DESTANEY TAYLOR, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 14-0935 (PLF)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action was brought by plaintiff Destaney Taylor against the defendant
District of Columbia (“the District”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. She seeks $28,395 in attorneys’ fees from the District related
to the implementation of a hearing officer determination (“HOD”) that awarded her
compensatory education for the denial of a free appropriate public education. Pending before the
Court is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, which seeks as its only relief the requested
fees. Upon consideration of the motion, the attached exhibits, and the entire record herein, the
Court will grant in part and deny in part Taylor’s motion for summary judgment and award
plaintiff $21,296.25 in attorneys’ fees. 1
1
The papers considered in connection with the pending motion include: plaintiff’s
amended complaint (“Am. Compl”) [Dkt. No. 7]; the District’s answer to plaintiff’s amended
complaint (“Answer to Am. Compl.”) [Dkt. No. 17]; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
(“Mot.”) [Dkt. No. 22]; the District’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment
(“Opp.”) [Dkt. No. 23]; and plaintiff’s reply to the District’s opposition (“Reply”) [Dkt. No. 24].
I. BACKGROUND
Destaney Taylor is an adult student eligible to receive special education and
related services from the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”). At the beginning of the
2013-14 school year, Taylor attempted to enroll at Ballou Senior High School. Mot. at 2; Am.
Compl. Ex. 1 (HOD) at 6 [Dkt. No. 7-1]. The school, however, denied her admission, claiming
that she was over the age of compulsory education. HOD at 6. Taylor then filed an
administrative due process complaint alleging that the District failed to meet its obligations
under the IDEA. Id. at 2-3. Following a due process hearing, an administrative hearing officer
issued a hearing officer determination requiring that DCPS provide and fund — as compensatory
education for the denial of a free appropriate public education — six credits towards Taylor’s
graduation and 50 hours of community service. Id. at 15.
Taylor’s attorney then arranged for her to begin services with Seeds of
Tomorrow, a private compensatory education provider, and informed DCPS’ case compliance
manager. Mot. at 4. DCPS, however, refused to authorize the Seeds of Tomorrow’s hourly rate
or the number of hours per week of specialized instruction requested. Id. at 4-6. Despite the fact
that Taylor’s Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) provided for 17.5 hours of specialized
instruction per week, the District refused to authorize any more than 75 total hours for the school
year, amounting to less than two hours per week. Id. at 8. After failing to reach agreement with
the District, Taylor filed a motion for a preliminary injunction before this Court as a member of
the Jones subclass in Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1629.
The Court referred the motion to Special Master Elise Baach and the parties
entered into a settlement agreement on March 12, 2014. Mot. at 9-10. Under the agreement,
DCPS paid $27,217.50 to Seeds of Tomorrow for Taylor’s credit hours and community service.
2
Mot. Ex. 2 at 1. Under the settlement agreement, the District also paid plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees
related to the administrative due process complaint and proceedings before this Court. But with
respect to plaintiff counsel’s fees related to implementation, the settlement agreement stated that
“[n]either this settlement agreement nor any portion herein shall be used or construed as
enjoining, estopping or precluding Carolyn Houck, Esq., Taylor’s attorney at the administrative
level, from seeking fees and costs related to her representation of Taylor in the administrative
case 2013-0595 resulting in the December 13, 2013 HOD.” Mot. Ex. 2 at 4.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the IDEA, plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of “reasonable
attorneys’ fees as part of the costs . . . to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child with a
disability.” See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B); see also Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 633 F.3d
1088, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 2 When determining the award of attorneys’ fees and costs in
special education cases like this one, the Court must decide whether the fees sought are
reasonable by calculating “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied
by a reasonable hourly rate” — the so-called “lodestar” fee. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
433 (1983); see, e.g., In re Olson, 884 F.2d 1415, 1423 n.13 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Sierra Club v.
Jackson, 926 F. Supp. 2d 341, 346 (D.D.C. 2013).
A plaintiff must submit supporting documentation with the motion for attorneys’
fees, providing sufficient detail so that the Court can determine “with a high degree of certainty”
that the hours billed were “actually and reasonably expended,” that the hourly rate charged was
2
The District does not contest that plaintiff is a prevailing party. The Court
therefore need not engage in the preliminary inquiry regarding whether the fee applicant is the
prevailing party.
3
reasonable in view of the attorney’s reputation and level of skill and experience with respect to
this type of case, and that the matter was appropriately staffed to do the work required efficiently
and without duplicative billing. In re Olson, 884 F.2d at 1423, 1428-29 (emphasis in original);
see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 433; Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1107
(D.C. Cir. 1995); Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 56 F. Supp. 3d 19, 24 (D.D.C. 2014);
Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 397 F. Supp. 2d 12, 14 (D.D.C. 2005). At a minimum, a fee
applicant must provide some information about the attorney’s billing practices, hourly rates, and
skill and experience, as well as the nature of the attorney’s practice as it relates to this kind of
litigation and the prevailing market rates in the community. Rooths v. Dist. of Columbia, 802 F.
Supp. 2d 56, 60 (D.D.C. 2011); Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 397 F. Supp. 2d at 14-15.
Once a plaintiff has provided such information, there is a presumption that the
number of hours billed and the hourly rates are reasonable, and the burden shifts to the defendant
to rebut the plaintiff’s showing of reasonable hours and reasonable hourly rates for attorneys of
the relevant skill and expertise. See Watkins v. Vance, 328 F. Supp. 2d 23, 26 (D.D.C. 2004);
“[I]n the normal case the Government must either accede to the applicant’s requested rate or
provide specific contrary evidence tending to show that a lower rate would be appropriate.”
Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d at 1109-10 (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans
v. Sec’y of Def., 675 F.2d 1319, 1326 (D.C. Cir. 1982)); see also Rooths v. Dist. of Columbia,
802 F. Supp. 2d at 60.
III. DISCUSSION
Taylor seeks to recover fees for 63.1 hours of work done by her attorney, Carolyn
Houck, to implement the HOD. In support of her motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has
submitted a declaration attesting to the experience and billing practices of Ms. Houck, the
4
attorney who worked on this case. See Declaration of Carolyn Houck, Mot. Ex. 29 (“Houck
Decl.”). Plaintiff also has submitted an invoice documenting the hours billed. See Invoice, Mot.
Ex. 5.
A. The Hourly Rate is Reduced
Plaintiff’s attorney, Carolyn Houck, is an attorney with 18 years of legal
experience in the field of special education. Houck Decl. at 1. Plaintiff seeks fees at an hourly
rate of $450 per hour, equivalent to the rate established by the so-called Laffey Matrix for an
attorney with between 11 and 19 years of experience. Mot. at 19; see Laffey Matrix
– 2003-2014, available at http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-
dc/legacy/2013/09/09/Laffey_Matrix%202014.pdf. That schedule of attorneys’ fees, first
developed based on information about the prevailing rates charged by federal litigators in the
District of Columbia, is maintained by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Columbia. See id. at nn.1-3. In this Circuit, the rates contained in the Laffey Matrix are
typically treated as the highest rates that will be presumed to be reasonable when a court reviews
a petition for statutory attorneys’ fees. See Rooths v. Dist. of Columbia, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 61;
Blackman v. Dist. of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 1999).
The District argues that the hourly rate should be reduced to three-quarters of the
Laffey rate for an attorney of Houck’s experience. Opp. at 5-7. Many judges of this Court,
including the undersigned, generally cap attorneys’ fees at three-quarters of the Laffey rate for
routine IDEA cases — where the claims involve “simple facts, little evidence, and no novel or
complicated questions of law.” Rooths v. Dist. of Columbia, 802 F. Supp. 2d at 63; see also
McAllister v. Dist. of Columbia, 53 F. Supp. 3d 55, 60 (D.D.C. 2014); Sykes v. Dist. of
Columbia, 870 F. Supp. 2d 86, 96 (D.D.C. 2012). This is such a case and the Court therefore
5
awards an hourly rate of $337.50, three-quarters of the Laffey rate for an attorney with between
11 and 19 years of experience.
B. The Hours Billed Are Awarded in Full
The District concedes, as it must, that plaintiff may recover attorneys’ fees related
to the implementation of the HOD pursuant to the 2011 and 2013 Alternative Dispute Resolution
Agreements entered into by the District in the Blackman/Jones case. See Blackman v. Dist. of
Columbia, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 29 (“That agreement expressly states that implementation fees in
this case are compensable and further notes that plaintiff ‘may seek an award for the total amount
of implementation fees from the United States District Court.’”). But the District contends that
plaintiff’s attorney failed to achieve timely implementation of the HOD and therefore that “none
of the invoiced legal services qualify for implementation fees under the ADR provisions.” Opp.
at 1. The Court is unpersuaded. The District fails to provide any support, from the record or
case law, for its argument that plaintiff must achieve timely implementation of the HOD, despite
the District’s refusal to comply, in order to qualify for attorneys’ fees. 3
The District further contends that certain time entries are unreasonable because
they “do not involve Ms. Houck providing or obtaining services for Ms. Taylor . . . .” Opp. at 5.
For example, the District argues that plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys’ fees for time spent
conferring with the vendor and Steve Nabors — the plaintiff’s attorney before the Special Master
and this Court — and time spent attending the hearing of the Special Master. Id. But the District
again provides no support for its assertion that these entries are unrelated to the implementation
3
Similarly, the District’s argument that the HOD was “not clear” and “poorly
worded,” which, the District urges, excuses its failure to timely implement, is irrelevant to
determining whether plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts were related to implementing the HOD. Opp.
at 3.
6
of the HOD. To the contrary, these entries — communication with the vendor to negotiate the
amount of compensatory education with the District, communication with co-counsel regarding
pursuing a preliminary injunction, and attendance at a hearing before the Special Master that
resulted in a formal settlement — appear directly related to the implementation of the HOD.
Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel’s efforts were necessitated by the District’s prolonged failure to
provide the compensatory education ordered by the HOD. The Court thus finds the hours billed
reasonable.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. The Court will award attorneys’ fees to plaintiff in the amount
of $21,296.25. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this same day.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_______________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: September 22, 2015
7