Jones ex rel. D.T. v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-155 (BAH)

• Decision Date: 18 August 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 15-155 (BAH)
• Parties: LAVONDA JONES, Parent and Next Friend of D.T., a minor, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

LAVONDA JONES, Parent and Next Friend of D.T., a minor, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-155 (BAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

August 18, 2015

Judge Beryl A. Howell

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The plaintiffs, Lavonda Jones and her minor child, brought this action against the District of Columbia seeking a total of $45,628.40 in attorneys' fees incurred pursuing an administrative proceeding brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (collectively, the "IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. The case was randomly referred to a Magistrate Judge for full case management. See Referral to Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 3. Thereafter, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. See Pl.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No.10; Def.'s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. & Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 13.

On July 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommendeding that the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. See Report and Recommendation ("R&R") at 2, ECF No. 18. Of the more than $45,000 in fees requested, the R&R explained that the District contested only$653,025 in entries invoiced in quarter-hour increments. Id. at 10.¹ The plaintiffs readily admitted that the entries invoiced in quarter-hour increments were typographical errors and proposed reducing the fee request further "as contrition for this small error." R&R at 10. Citing relevant authority, the R&R concluded that this reduction was unnecessary, recommended that entries billed to the quarter-hour not be stricken, and admonished the plaintiffs' counsel that future timesheets must reflect billing entries in six-minute increments. Id at 10-11. Consequently, the R&R recommended that the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. The R&R further recommended that the plaintiffs be awarded total fees in the amount of $45,272.77. Id. at 11.

The Court takes note of, and concurs in, the Magistrate Judge's observation that the District's "[q]uarreling over eleven minutes out of 132.62 hours billed—especially in light of the fact that [the plaintiffs] appeared willing to waive those disputed minutes—is beyond comprehension." Id. at 11. Indeed, with little more than the cost of the filing fee at stake, the District's decision to pursue this matter to resolution defies easy explanation.

The R&R cautioned the parties that failing to file a timely objection within 14 days of the party's receipt of the R&R, could result in their waiving the right to appeal an order of the District Court adopting the recommendations. See id. at 12. No objection to the R&R has been timely filed, and the time to file such an objection has lapsed, see Local Civil Rule 72.3(b), and thus, any objections are deemed waived. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-55 (1985).

The Court, upon independent consideration of the pending motions and the entire record herein, concurs with the recommendations made in the R&R. Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 18,...