Coates v. Dist. of Columbia

• Decision Date: 03 February 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14–968 RMC
• Parties: Regina Coates, Plaintiff, v. District of Columbia, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

79 F.Supp.3d 42

Regina Coates, Plaintiff

v.District of Columbia, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14–968 RMC

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed February 3, 2015

Elizabeth T. Jester, Jester & Williams, Great Falls, VA, for Plaintiff.

Victoria Lynne Healy, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge

After prevailing in an administrative action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act on behalf of her child, Regina Coates sues the District of Columbia for attorney fees and costs. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. As a prevailing party, Ms. Coates is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs. Having considered the record closely, the Court will reduce the attorney's hourly rate, strike attorney hours spent on an unsuccessful pre-hearing motion, and reduce charges for travel time, facsimiles, and copying.

I. FACTS

Regina Coates is the parent of a minor child, R.C. As provided for by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., she pursued a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A), for R.C. after the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) failed to agree that R.C. had special needs. Ms. Coates filed an administrative due process complaint against DCPS on December 6, 2013. Following a prehearing conference, the hearing officer identified the following four issues for hearing:

1. Should DCPS have classified the Student as eligible for special education services as a Student with an emotional disturbance from January, 2013 through present, and provided the Student with an[ ] appropriate IEP and educational placement? If so[,] did DCPS deny the Student FAPE?

2. In connection to the IEP meetings for July 24, 2013 and October 1, 2013, did DCPS fail to include appropriate and required team members? If so, did DCPS deny the Student a FAPE?

3. In connection to the IEP meetings for July 24, 2013 and October 1, 2013, did DCPS fail to conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment and Vocational Assessment?

4. In connection to the IEP meetings for July 24, 2013 and October 1, 2013, did DCPS fail to meaningfully consider the 4 independent evaluations previously obtained by the Petitioner?

Pl. Mot., Ex. 1, Hearing Officer Determination (HOD) [Dkt. 7–5] at 2–3. Ms. Coates filed a pre-hearing motion for a classroom observation of R.C. by her expert, but it was denied by the hearing officer. The due process hearing was held on February 6, 2014. In an HOD dated February 19, 2014, the hearing officer concluded that R.C. must be “deemed eligible for services as a Student with an emotional disturbance” and found that the District had “denied [R.C.] a FAPE by the IEP team's decision to find the Student ineligible [for special education services] at the July, 2013 and October, 2013 meetings.” Id. at 15.

The hearing officer awarded six months of remedial reading tutoring for two hours per week, at least five hours per week of specialized instruction within general education, a Functional Behavioral Assessment, one hour per week of speech and language therapy, one hour per week of occupational therapy and two hours per week of counseling. Id. at 17–19. The hearing officer denied requests for a full time therapeutic setting, mentoring, wraparound services, a vocational assessment, and extended school year services.Id. at 17–20.

Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), a court may award attorney fees to a parent who prevails in an IDEA proceeding. Ms. Coates submitted a petition for attorney fees and costs to the District in the amount of $48,055.28. Pl. Mot. for Summ. J. [Dkt. 7–1] (Pl.Mot.), Ex. 2 [Dkt. 7–6] (Invoice). DCPS objected to aspects of its recorded fees and costs and this lawsuit followed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Summary Judgment

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; accord Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Moreover, summary judgment is properly granted against a party who “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must draw all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor and accept the nonmoving party's evidence as true. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In addition, the nonmoving party may not rely solely on allegations or conclusory statements. Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.Cir.1999). Rather, the nonmoving party must present specific facts that would enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor. Id. at 675. If the evidence “is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted).

B. Attorney Fees under IDEA

IDEA authorizes an award of attorney fees to a prevailing party, specifically including the parent of a child with a disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I). Attorney fees “shall be based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished.” Id. § 1415(i)(3)(C). Thus, to recover attorney fees, a party must demonstrate that she is the prevailing party and that the fees sought are reasonable. Rooths v. Dist. of Columbia, 802 F.Supp.2d 56, 60 (D.D.C.2011). In complex federal litigation, courts determine whether a fee is reasonable by calculating a “lodestar fee,” i.e. the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).¹ A reduction in fees may be appropriate if a party is only partially successful. Id. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. A fee applicant bears the burden of establishing all elements of the requested fee award, including entitlement to the award, documentation of appropriate hours, and justification for the reasonableness of the rates. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) ; Covington v. Dist. of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C.Cir.1995).²

The determination of a market rate is “inherently difficult” and is decided by the court in its discretion. Blum, 465 U.S. at 896 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541. “To inform and assist the court in the exercise of its discretion, the burden is on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney's own affidavits—that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.”Id. “[A]n attorney's usual billing rate is presumptively the reasonable rate, provided that this rate ‘is in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services' ....” Kattan by Thomas v. District of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274, 278 (D.C.Cir.1993) (internal citation omitted).

IDEA also provides specifies bases for reducing fee requests. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(F). These reasons include, among others, an unreasonable fee demand beyond that prevailing in the community for similar services, id. § 1415(i)(3)(F)(ii), and excessive time spent or legal services furnished considering the nature of the case. Id. § 1415(i)(3)(F)(iii).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Rates

Ms. Coates seeks reimbursement from the District of Columbia for legal services rendered by the law firm of Jester and Williams, as set forth in the Invoice. Elizabeth Jester, a named partner, represented Ms. Coates. Ms. Jester has more than 20 years' experience in litigating IDEA cases. She submitted the Invoice to DCPS reflecting a billing rate of $505 per hour for work performed from January 2013 through May 2013 and $510 per hour for work performed from June 2013 through May 2014. Mery Williams, a paralegal with approximately 19 years of experience at Jester and Williams, assisted with the preparation of attorney fee invoices. The Invoice billed her time at $145 per hour.

Ms. Coates contends that the rates of $505 and $510 per hour for attorney services and $145 per hour for paralegal services are reasonable because those are the rates on the Laffey Matrix for the respective year.³ The Laffey Matrix was developed by the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia to track prevailing attorney hourly rates for complex federal litigation here. Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109. It “creates one axis for a lawyer's years of experience in complicated federal litigation and a second [axis] for rates of compensation.” Griffin v. Wash. Convention Ctr., 172 F.Supp.2d 193, 197 (D.D.C.2001). The rates on the Laffey Matrix are typically treated as the maximum rates that will be presumed to be reasonable when a court reviews a petition for statutory attorney fees. Rooths, 802 F.Supp.2d at 61. Set for June 1 through May 31, the Laffey rates for attorneys with more than 20 years of experience was $505 for 2012–2013 and $510 for 2013–2014. Laffey Matrix. The Laffey rate for paralegals for the years 2012–2014 was $145. Id.

Among other objections to the Invoice, the District objects to a straight application of Laffey rates, arguing that this IDEA litigation was not complex federal litigation and that three-quarters of the relevant Laffey rate is the prevailing rate in the District of Columbia for non-complex IDEA matters. D.C. asks the Court to limit the attorney and...