IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARIA C., a minor by and : CIVIL ACTION

through her parent and natural :

guardian, IRIS NEREIDA CAMACHO :

 :

v. :

 :

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF :

PHILADELPHIA : NO. 02-4336

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM

Fullam, Sr. J. June , 2004

On October 1, 2003, I entered an Order denying

defendant’s motion to dismiss and granting plaintiff time in

which to submit an application for attorneys’ fees. On May 5,

2004, I entered an Order awarding counsel fees to plaintiff in

the sum of $24,484.00 - a substantial reduction in the amount

which had been claimed. Plaintiff has also submitted a further

application for an award of counsel fees to another attorney for

litigating the counsel fee issue on behalf of the first attorney. 

Although captioned as a motion for “Attorneys’ Fees for the Cost

of Litigating the Underlying Fee Petition,” the current motion

describes, for the most part, services allegedly rendered by the

second attorney (Luis P. Diaz, Esquire) in conjunction with the

first attorney (David Sambolin, Esquire) on the merits of the

case, rather than the fee petition.

Case 2:02-cv-04336-JF Document 34 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 1 of 4
2

I conclude that the May 5th Order awarding counsel fees

disposed of all issues concerning counsel fees concerning the

merits of the case - i.e., whether plaintiff was or was not a

prevailing party entitled to counsel fees, and the amount of fees

to be awarded. When the May 5th Order was entered, the record

before this court included claims for attorneys’ fees and costs

totaling $92,117.53 ($64,005.63 for services performed by David

Sambolin, Esquire and $28,111.90 for services provided by Luis P.

Diaz, Esquire). The claim for counsel fees is the claim of the

plaintiff, not the attorneys. It is indeed unfortunate that

plaintiff’s counsel seem to have overlooked this basic point,

and, it now appears have filed separate claims for attorneys’

fees. The original reduction imposed by this court on May 5,

2004, cutting the award to $24,484.16, was predicated upon the

obvious fact that the hours claimed were excessive and

unreasonable (e.g., the claim for time allegedly devoted to

drafting the complaint), that there was a great deal of

unnecessary duplication of services, and that much of the claim

related to services which should not have been necessary (e.g.,

correcting counsel’s mistakes); and it further appeared that a

considerable portion of the alleged services could have been, and

undoubtedly should have been, performed by non-attorney personnel

at lower hourly rates.

Case 2:02-cv-04336-JF Document 34 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 2 of 4
3

The same types of defects are reflected in the current

application by Mr. Diaz . I do not believe it reasonable to

award what would amount to duplicate payments to two attorneys,

one of whom was representing the other in the pursuit of counsel

fees (Mr. Diaz’s bill was submitted to Mr. Sambolin, according to

the exhibit attached to Mr. Diaz’s present application).

From an abundance of caution, however, since it appears

that some of Mr. Diaz’s efforts were not included in my previous

award to Mr. Sambolin, I deem it appropriate to enter a modest

additional award covering Mr. Diaz’s allowable services in

seeking the fee award. I agree with defendant that most of the

efforts of Mr. Diaz would probably not have been necessary at all

if Mr. Sambolin had promptly submitted the required information

to the defendant, rather than simply demanding a flat sum

($50,000.00) and filing suit. Counsel did spend some time

“reconstructing” the record on the basis of “time sheets,

documents and other records,” and did prepare the actual

application for counsel fees. I conclude that a reasonable

amount of time for these efforts (in additional to Mr. Sambolin’s

time) would be, at most, 10 hours. At the claimed rate of

$250.00 per hour, this results in a further award of $2,500.00.

An Order to that effect will now be entered. This

Memorandum will also serve as a written explanation of the

reduction in Mr. Sambolin’s award.

Case 2:02-cv-04336-JF Document 34 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 3 of 4
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARIA C., a minor by and : CIVIL ACTION

through her parent and natural :

guardian, IRIS NEREIDA CAMACHO :

:

v. :

:

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF :

PHILADELPHIA : NO. 02-4336

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of June, 2004, upon

consideration of “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Rule 54 (FRCP) PostJudgment I.D.E.A. Attorneys’ Fees for the Cost of Litigating the

Underlying Fee Petition” filed May 10, 2004, and defendant’s

response, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff is awarded the further sum of $2,500.00, to

cover the efforts reasonably expended by Luis Diaz, Esquire, not

duplicative of the efforts of other counsel.

2. The accompanying Memorandum constitutes a summary of

this court’s reasons for the May 5, 2004 Order, as well as the

present Order.

 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.

Case 2:02-cv-04336-JF Document 34 Filed 06/25/2004 Page 4 of 4