Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-16-07035/USCOURTS-caDC-16-07035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 16-7035 September Term, 2016

 FILED ON: JANUARY 25, 2017

JOSEPHINE MCALLISTER, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:11-cv-02173)

Before: TATEL and MILLETT, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

Upon consideration of the record from the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia and the briefs and arguments of the parties, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.

Appellants, the parents of children who prevailed in part in proceedings brought pursuant 

to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., appeal from 

a judgment denying in part their request for attorneys’ fees for time spent obtaining fees for their 

underlying IDEA cases. Appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion by failing to 

address declarations filed with their reply brief and by relying on other district court fee awards 

as evidence of the prevailing market rate for IDEA fee litigation. Appellants contend, 

specifically, that the decisions cited by the district court lack any evidence of market rates in the 

Washington, D.C. area.

We reject both arguments. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to 

address two cursory declarations, which contain no mention of specific rates and were submitted 

for the first time with plaintiffs’ reply. Nor did the court err in relying on other fee decisions, 

three of which referred to the Laffey matrix, a schedule of market rates for complex federal 

litigation in Washington, D.C. See Covington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. 

USCA Case #16-7035 Document #1657261 Filed: 01/25/2017 Page 1 of 2
Cir. 1995) (noting that, to demonstrate the prevailing market rate, plaintiffs may “provide . . . 

evidence of recent fees awarded by the courts”); National Association of Concerned Veterans v. 

Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d 1319, 1325 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (“[D]ata about fee awards in 

other cases help to ensure comparable treatment of like cases.”); cf. Eley v. District of Columbia, 

793 F.3d 97, 100–01 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (discussing Laffey matrices and explaining that such “fee 

matrices [are] one type of evidence that ‘provide[s] a useful starting point’ in calculating the 

prevailing market rate” (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1109)).

Pursuant to Rule 36 of this court, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is 

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after the disposition of any 

timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail

Deputy Clerk

USCA Case #16-7035 Document #1657261 Filed: 01/25/2017 Page 2 of 2