Main Controversy Surrounded Hourly Rates and Reasonableness of Fee Request.
The great thing about blogging is that we actually do get reader participation, and participation by reader attorneys that have won significant fee awards. Here is a recent award to a student under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal fee-shifting statute we have discussed in other posts. (See our January 16, 2010 post on the Ninth Circuit’s Weissburg decision.)
In Compton Unified School District v. A.F., Case No. CV 09-1427 AHM (CWx) (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2010), U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz issued an attorney’s fees order under IDEA against Compton Unified School District and in favor of student’s guardians for failure to provide access to a free and appropriate public education for his suspected disability. The amount of the award was $162,996.
Although raising some standing issues, none really had any legal or factual authority underpinning them. This meant that the main challenge devolved to a determination of the reasonable amount of fees to be awarded.
School district claimed the hourly rate of $400 for student’s attorney—32 years out of law school—was excessive, an argument rejected by Judge Matz given three things: (1) student offered another attorney declaration indicating that she similarly charged federal litigation rates between $400-500; (2) school district’s own attorney declarations showed that $325-500 would not be out of the realm; and (3) student’s submitted proof of current hourly billing rates by attorneys as opposed to the more stale 2007 evidence presented by school district.
However, Judge Matz did reduce the requested fees by 15%, indicating that this would adjust for any unfairness in the request. He also seemed to believe that most of student’s attorney’s fees were justified, given that the district caused additional work for her on different junctures of the litigation.
We congratulate Leejanice Toback, the winning attorney, for a hard fought battle and significant attorney’s fees award obtained on behalf of her client. Also, thanks for notifying us of this district court opinion.