Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): activities are related to the due process complaint that was later filed on December 5, 2008, and to the due process hearing that occurred on February 3, 2009. Id. The defendants contend that these activities should not be allowed because they are too remote in time from the February 2009 administrative proceeding. Defs.’ Opp’n at 17. They therefore assert that 5.65 hours should be disallowed from the plaintiff’s fee petition, reducing the total by $1,208.80. Id. The plaintiff responds that all legal activities for which she was charged are directly related and in close proximity to the administrative proceeding. PL’s Reply at 10. Charges incurred a few months prior to an IDEA due process hearing are not too remote. See Cox v. District of Columbia, 754 F.Supp.2d 66, 77-78 (D.D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>); Lax v. District of Columbia, 2006 WL 1980264, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that charges for work done less than five months before an idea due process hearing were reasonable (B) holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process (C) holding attorneys must be given reasonable notice of the charges they face before the referees hearing on those charges (D) holding that due process requires that a hearing be held within a reasonable time after confinement to administrative segregation and finding that five days plainly satisfied this requirement (E) holding that continuing to work for five months before deciding to retire and three months thereafter as a matter of law   are not the actions of someone who finds his working conditions so intolerable that he felt compelled to resign
Output (English): holding attorneys must be given reasonable notice of the charges they face before the referees hearing on those charges