UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

____________________________________ ) ADRI ENNE WRI GHT, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 11-0384 ( AK) DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A, )

) Def endant. ) ____________________________________)
MEMORAN DUM OP INION On J anuar

y 11, 2012, the under signe d g rante d-in-par t and denied- in-part Plaintiffs’ Adrienne Wright, et al . (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary J udg ment [16] in which Plaintiffs reque sted attorney

fee s and costs for

work in an a dminist rative a ction under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“ I DEA” ), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (Orde r, Jan. 11, 2012 [ 20].) Pending be fore the under signe d is Pl aintiffs’ Motion for A ttorney s Fe es and Costs [21]

. Def endant District of

Columbi a (“ Def

endant” or “the District”) oppose s Plainti ffs’ Motion for Attorney s Fe es and Costs [22] . For the re asons set for

th below, Plaintiffs’ Motion will be g rante d-in-par

t and denied- in-part.

I. BACKG ROUND Adrienne Wright is the par ent of a minor child who preva iled in an administrative ac tion broug ht ag ainst the District of Columbia Publi c Schools (“D CPS ”) pur suant to the I DEA. ( See Hea ringOffic er’ s Dec ision [ 16-5].) For w ork in the administrative a ction, Plaintiffs submit ted to

-1-DCPS four invoice s for attorney s fee s and costs totaling $62,563.18. DCPS paid Plaintiffs

$43,207.33 of the re quested a mount, and Plaintiffs filed suit in t his Court for the re maining $19,355.85, plus prejudg ment interest. In the J anuar y 11, 2012 Orde r, the unde rsig ned aw arde d Plaintiffs $6,366.15 and denied the ir reque st for pre judgme nt interest. In the cur rent proc eeding , Plaintiffs seek attorne y s fee s and costs incurr ed in adjudicating the fe e dispute in this Court. This i s often known a s reque sting “ fee s on fee s.” See Kasem an v. District of Columbia , 444 F.3d 637, 640 ( D.D.C. 2006). Plaintiffs cite 42.7 hours f or Elizabeth J ester ( “Jester”), Plaintiffs’ attorney , and 0.7 hours f or Mar y Wil liams (“Willi ams”), Jester’s para leg al. ( SeePls.’ Mot. for Attorney Fe es, Ex. 1 [ 21-4].) J ester’ s normal hourly rate is $450.00 per hour

and Willi ams’ norma l hourly rate at $125.00. ( See id. ) Thus fa r, De fenda

nt has not paid any

invoices for

fee s on fee s. Plainti ffs re quest $18,897.50 in attorney fee s and $503.33 in costs for a total of $19,400.83. (

Id. )

II. ANALYSIS A. P laintif

fs are entitled to fees on fees The I DEA a llows attorney fee s to be collec ted when the plaintiff is the “pre vailing pa rty” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B ). He re, the parties disagree about whethe r Plaintiffs wer e the preva iling par

ty when the unde rsig ned aw arde d Plaintiffs attorney s fee s and costs for work in the underlying a dminist rative a ction. (Pls.’ Mot. at 2; Def.’s O pp. at 3.) This is a fa lse argument. The que stion for deter

mining pre vailing pa

rty status for fe es-on- fee s is whether Plaintiffs preva iled at the administrative leve l, and this Court has alrea dy found that they

did. See Kaseman v. District of Columbia , 444 F.3d 637, 640 ( D.D.C. 2006) (“ [p] arties who pr evail at the
-2-administrative level c an also re cover fee s-on-fe es, as our

g ener al rule is that the c ourt may awa rd additional fee s for ‘time r easona bly devoted to obtainingattorney s fee s’”) (citing Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA , 672 F.2d 42, 62 ( D.C. Cir. 1982). Acc ording ly , Plaintiffs are e ntitled to recove r fee s-on-fe es. B. Numberof H ours Plaintiffs note that Defe ndant does not cha lleng e spec ific time entries in De fenda nt’s Opposition, (Pls .’ Reply

[23] at 1, n. 1); howe ver, D efe ndant also has not paid Plaintiffs for the time logg ed, and the ref

ore ha s not conce ded that Plaintiffs’ time entrie s are rea sonable. The undersig ned finds that a numbe r of time entr ies are not rea sonable a nd do not need to be reimburse d. First, on May

24, 2012, Tasha H ardy

(“H ardy”) e ntere d her a

ppear ance in the case for the District. Plaintiffs seek 0.20 hours f or “[r]eview Entry

of Appe ranc e [sic] from T. Ha rdy , Esq., AAG.” Plaintiffs’ time entry from May

20, 2012 indicates that Jester spoke to Ha rdy on the phone on that date , so J ester a lrea dy had knowledg e that Ha

rdy was the ne w lawyer f

or the District and did not need to r eview H ardy ’s Entry of Appe ara

nce. T he time entry

on May 24, 2012 is not reimbursable. Second, Plaintiffs’ fina l five time entries r elate to the r equest for fee s-on-fe es. On Mar ch 4, 2012, April 4, 2012 and Apr il 25, 2012, Pl aintiffs’ e ntries involve cor responde nce f

rom J ester to Hardy about the possibility

of settling the claim for f ees- on-fe es. ( SeePls.’ Reply , Ex s. 1-3.) On May 25 and 26, Plaintiffs’ entr ies involve draf ting a nd finalizing the pe nding Motion for Attorney s Fe es and Costs. Rece iving f ees f or the dra fting of the pe nding Motion amounts to “fe es-on- fee s-on-fe es.” Plaintiffs ar e entitled to fe es incurr ed during the adjudica

tion of the due
-3-proce ss complaint and for f ees inc urre d in obtaining the r eimbursement of those fee s. Howeve r,
rec eiving“fe es on fe es on fe es” is too attenuated from the a djudication of the due proce ss complaint to be re imbursable. Plaintiffs’ time entrie s are reduc ed by 3.9 hours. Noting the prec edingdeductions, Plaintiffs are entitled to 38.6 hours for Jester and 0.7 hours for Williams. C. Hourly Rate In the J anuar

y 11, 2012 Orde r, the Court found that Plaintiffs we re e ntitled to an hourly rate of three -quar

ters of the Laffey Matrix for work re lated to the administrative due proce ss complaint. (Orde r, Jan. 11, 2012 at 7.) For a lawyer w ith over 20 y ear s of experienc e, like J ester, the awa

rded hour ly

rate s were $348.75 and $356.25 per hour. ( Id. at 8.) This rate

1 ref lected Jester’s know ledg e of I DEA lawand administrative pr ocee dings a nd the level of complexit y

of the unde rlying la

wsuit. ( Id. at 6.) A “r easona

ble” hour ly

rate shall be base d on rate s preva iling in the community and the burden is on Plaintiffs to show the re asonable ness of a ny rate . 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(c ); Covington v. District of Col umbia , 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 ( D.C. Cir. 1995). Plaintiffs request hourly rate s acc ordingto the LaffeyMatrix, which was cre ated to follow ra tes cha rg ed by litigators who pr actice complex federa l liti g ation in the District of Columbia and ar e pre sumptive maxi mum rates for

such litigation. Laffey v. Northwest Airli nes, Inc

. 572 F. Supp. 354, 374 (D.D.C. 1983) aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds , 746 F.2d 4 ( D.C. Cir. 1984) (“the rele vant leg al marke t in this action is complex employ ment discrimination liti g ation”). Where

See U.S. Attorney ’s Off

ice - District of Columbia, Laffey Matrix– 2003-2012 , 1 http:// www.justice.g ov/usao/dc/divisions/ civil_L aff ey _Matrix_2003-2012.pdf. -4-the fe dera l liti g ation is not particularly complex, the plaintiff is not entit led to the full Laffey rate s. See R ooths v. District of Col umbia , No. 09-c v-0492, 2011 WL3529292, at *6 (D.D .C. Aug . 9, 2011). In deter mining the r ate f

or “f ees- on-fe es,” the undersig ned has pr eviously held that “f

ee litigation is not complex fede ral litigation and does not nec essar ily entail spec ialized ex pertise and experienc e.” Smith v. District of Col umbia , No. 02-c v-373, 2005 WL914773 at *3 (D.D .C. Apr. 18, 2005) ( awa

rdingPlaintiff’s counsel a n hourly rate of $250 for

fee s-on-fe es litigation). In contra st, the undersig ned’s January 11, 2012 Orde r noted that a dminist rative pr ocee dings under I DEA do re quire spec ialized ex pertise a nd experience . ( SeePls.’ Mot. for Attorney Fe es, Ex . 1.) F ollowing these two prior dec isions, the hourly rate for f ee litig ation should be less than the rate for w ork in the under lying a dminist rative pr ocee ding. F urthermor e, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the complexit y of the fe e litigation. Accor dingly , the under signe d holds that Plaintiffs are e ntitled to half of the applica ble rate under

the Laffey Matrix, or $237.50 per hour for wor k prior to J une 1, 2011 and $247.50 f or work on or

afte r June 1, 2011. 2 Wil liams, J ester’ s para leg al, is entitled to an hourly rate of $140.00 per

hour under

the Laffey Matrix. W illiams prepare d the attorne y fee invoice for

the Motion for Attorney

Fe es. In the J anuar

y 11, 2012 Orde r, the unde rsig ned aw arde d Wil liams three- quarte rs of the Laffeyrate
. On April 19, 2011, Judge Huve lle held a status conf ere nce that the parties a

ttended in 2 person. ( Minute Entry , April 19, 2011.) On that date, Plaintiffs seek 1.80 hour s under “ [t ]ravel to court hea

ring ” at the r ate of

$250.00 per hour . (Pls.’ Mot. for Attorney Fe es, Ex. 1 at 2.) Trave l time is gene rally

compensated at half

of the norma l hourly

rate
. Buche r v. District of Columbia , 777 F. Supp. 2d 69, 77 (D.D .C. 2011); but see Thomas ex rel. A.T. v. District of Columbia , No. 03-c v-1791, 2007 WL891367 at *13 (D.D .C. Mar. 22, 2007) ( reduc ing a ttorney ’s hourly rate from $360.00 per

hour to $160.00 per hour for tra vel time). B eca

use the unde rsig ned finds that the re levant hourly rate for Jester would be $237.50 pe r hour, Jester’s travel time will be re imbursed at $118.75 per hour. -5-Be cause Wil liams’ work in this case is the same ty pe of w ork done pr eviously , the Court will
awa rd Will iams three- quarte r of the Laffey rate here , or $105.00 per hour. D. Calculation After making the above modifications, J ester log g ed 24.9 hours pr ior to J une 1, 2011 for which half

of the re levant hourly

rate under the LaffeyMatrix i s $237.50 per hour . J ester log g ed 11.9 hours on or a fter June 1, 2011, for which half of the re levant hourly

rate under the Laffey Matrix i s $247.50 per hour . Wil liams logg ed 0.7 hours a fter June 1, 2011 for which three

quarte rs of the r eleva

nt hourly rate under the LaffeyMatrix i s $105.00 per hour . Finally , J ester logg ed 1.8 hours of

trave l time at half of the hour ly rate otherwise a

war ded, equa ling $118.75 pe r hour. The total amount Pl aintiffs ar e entitled to for attorney s’ fe es is $9,146.25. E. Costs Plaintiffs log $350.00 a s reimburseme nt for the “ Complaint Filing F ee.” (Compl.; P l.’s Mot. for Attorney

Fe es, Ex. 4 at 3.) Plainti ffs a lso request re imbursement of $100.00 in total for Service of Proce ss Fee s on the Mayor and the Attorney Gene ral. (Pls.’ Supplemental Motion [24] .) Plaintiff will be g rante d those fee s. See L CvR 54.1(d) (costs of se rvice of summons and complaint are costs taxable by the cler k) Lill bask ex

rel. Mauclaire v . Connecticut De pt. of Educ. , No. 3:97-cv- 1202, 2006 WL752872 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2006) (g rantingcosts for f iling fee and ser

vice of proce ss). Plaintiffs are a lso gr anted f ax and copying c osts at $0.15 per pa g e and milea g e at $0.558 per mile. B ased on Jester’s time shee ts, these costs total $48.89. Finally , Plaintiffs request $4.00 for Jester’s pa

rkingmeter dur ing the hear ing be fore the under signe d and $0.44 in postag e.

-6-Plaintiffs are grante d parkingfee s of $4.00 and $0.44 in postag e. Ac cording ly , Plaintiffs are

entitled to $503.33 in costs.

III. CONCLUSION For the above rea sons, Plainti ffs’ Motion for Attorney s Fe es and Costs will be g rante d-inpart a nd denied- in-part. Plaintiffs will be aw arde d $9,649.58.

DATE: August 10, 2012 /s/ ALAN KAY UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE

-7-