UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AFFINITY FINANCIAL : CORPORATION et al. , : : Petitioners, : Civil Action No.: 10-2055 (RMU) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 18, 21 : AARP FINANCIAL, INC., : : Respondent. : MEMORANDUM OPINION G RANTING THE P ETITIONER ’ S M OTION FOR A TTORNEY ’ S F EES AND C OSTS ; G RANTING THE P ETITIONER ’ S S UPPLEMENTAL M OTION FOR A TTORNEY ’ S F EES AND C OSTS
This matter is before the court on the petiti oners’ two motions for attorney’s fees and costs. The petitioners are Affinity Financial Corporation and Waterfield Financial Services. Pet. ¶ 1. The respondent is AARP Financial, Inc. In August 2006, Affi nity entered into a contract with the respondent under which Affin ity would provide financial services to AARP members. Id. ¶ 3. Affinity then assigned its co ntractual rights to Waterfield. Id. ¶ 4. Following a contractual dispute, the partie s agreed to under go arbitration. Id. ¶ 6. In October 2010, a panel of three arbitrators unanimously found in favor of the petitioners and awarded them a total of $2.75 million in damages. Resp.’s Opp’n, Ex. E at 3. Soon thereafter, the petitioners sought an or der from this court to affirm the award, see generally Pet., and the respondent filed a cont emporaneous motion to vacate the award, see generally Resp.’s Mot. to Vacate the Arbitration Awar d. In addition, both parties requested an award of reasonable attorney’s f ees and costs under D.C. Code § 16-4225(c). Pet. ¶ 19; Resp.’s Reply at 8. In July 2011, this court granted th e petition to affirm the arbitrator’s award and2 denied the respondent’s motion. See generally Mem. Op. (July 1, 2011). The court also granted the petitioners leave to seek reasonable attorn ey’s fees, costs and pos t-judgment interest. Id. at 9-10. Four weeks later, the res pondent filed a notice of appeal. See generally Notice of Appeal. The petitioners have now filed two mo tions that collectively seek $30,419.82 in attorney’s fees and litigation costs. 1 See generally Pets.’ Mot. for Atty’s Fees; Pets.’ Suppl. Mot. for Atty’s Fees. The respondent contends that the court’s underlying decision to confirm the arbitration award was incorrectly decided and is therefore purs uing an appeal. Resp.’s Supp. Opp’n at 1. For the purposes of the present motio ns, however, the respondent stipulates that the amount of attorney’s fees and costs is reasonable. 2 Id. In a judicial proceeding to confirm or v acate an arbitration awar d, the court “may add reasonable attorney’s fees and ot her reasonable expenses of litiga tion incurred” to its judgment.
D.C. C ODE § 16-4425(c); Foulger–Pratt Presiden tial Contracting, LLC, v. Madrigal Condos. , 2011 WL 1576095, at *22 (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2011) (gran ting attorney’s fees after confirming an arbitration award). To receive such an award, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) requires that a party file a motion with the court. F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 54(d)(2)(A). That motion “must specify the judgment and the statute, rule, or other gr ounds entitling the movant to the award.” F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(ii). It must also state the amount sought in attorn ey’s fees or provide a fair estimate of such amount. F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 54(d)(2)(B)(iii); see also Herbin v. District of Columbia , 2006 WL 890673, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 4, 2006).

1 The petitioners’ second motion fixes a minor error that was present in their first motion, such that the two motions may effectively be treated as one.

2 It is the court’s understanding that the respondent seeks an expeditious judgment on the petitioners’ motions so that the respondent may si multaneously appeal this court’s affirmance of the arbitration award and its award of attorney’s fees and costs.3 The petitioner has filed proper motions that sp ecify both the judgment and the statute that entitle the petitioners to the award of attorney’s fees and other reasonable costs. See generally Pets.’ Mot. for Atty’s Fees; Pets.’ Supp. Mot. for Atty’s Fees. The petitioner has submitted affidavits and detailed billing records documen ting the number of hours th e petitioners’ counsel expended on this litigation. Pets.’ Mot. for Atty ’s Fees, Ex. A, A-2; Pets.’ Supp. Mot. for Atty’s Fees at 4-15. In addition, the petitioners ha ve shown that their counsel’s billing rates were within the range of hourly fees suggested by the Laffey Matrix, a f act that strongly suggests that their hourly fees are consonant with prevailing market rates. 3 See Covington v. District of Columbia , 57 F.3d 1101, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Rooths v. District of Columbia , 2011 WL 2539292, at *4 (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2011); Pets.’ Mot. for Atty’s Fees, Ex. A-1. The court has reviewed these submissions and concludes that the petitioners’ request for fees and costs is reasonable. Accordingly, the court grants the peti tioners’ motions and awards them $30,419.82 in attorney’s fees and litigation costs. An Orde r consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issu ed this 7th day of October, 2011.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge

3 The “Laffey Matrix” is compiled by the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and it establishes a market rate for attorn eys of various experience levels for particular “billing” years. It has its origin in the decision in Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds , 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984).