Maldonado v. Morgan Hill Unified School District

Background

E.F. and B., E.F.’s parent, sought attorneys’ fees and costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for work performed in two administrative proceedings and in this federal case. The underlying dispute concerned educational support provided to E.F. by Morgan Hill Unified School District.

In the first administrative proceeding, the plaintiffs voluntarily requested dismissal without prejudice after the administrative law judge denied a request to continue the hearing. The judge later denied the plaintiffs’ request to reconsider that dismissal.

In the second administrative proceeding, the administrative law judge addressed 40 issues in two phases. The first phase concerned whether claims were barred by the two-year filing deadline. The second phase addressed the merits of the claims that were not time-barred. The administrative law judge found that the plaintiffs prevailed on two issues: the District improperly removed E.F. from special education and failed to assess E.F. before doing so. The judge ordered the District to reinstate E.F.’s special-education eligibility, offer assessments, hold an individualized education program team meeting to review those assessments, and provide 35 hours of individualized specialized academic instruction. No party appealed that decision.

Prevailing-party status and billing records

The court held that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties because they obtained a material change in the parties’ legal relationship by prevailing on two issues in the second administrative proceeding.

The District argued that the plaintiffs’ billing records were unreliable and that the fee request should be denied entirely. The court found that the records contained concerning changes to work descriptions and that the plaintiffs improperly attempted to submit a different set of records with their reply. The court nevertheless found the records were not so inadequate that the motion had to be denied entirely. It considered the reliability concerns when evaluating the reasonable hours.

Reduction of administrative-proceeding hours

The plaintiffs claimed 241.1 hours for the administrative proceedings. The court excluded 19.1 hours associated with duplicative work in the first proceeding, 7.5 hours spent on the unsuccessful motion to reconsider the dismissal of that proceeding, and 5.5 hours spent preparing subpoenas that the court found excessive and unnecessary. This left 209 hours.

The court treated the time-barred claims in the first phase of the second proceeding as unrelated to the claims decided on the merits in the second phase. Because the billing records did not clearly separate the time spent on the time-barred claims, and because that phase used more than half of the hearing time, the court reduced the administrative hours by 50%.

The plaintiffs prevailed on two of the 19 issues considered on the merits. The court found those issues related to the other merits issues because the evidence and witnesses overlapped. Although the plaintiffs obtained significant relief, they did not succeed on many of the claims or obtain much of the relief requested. The court therefore imposed another 50% reduction for limited success and billing-record concerns, resulting in 52.3 compensable administrative hours.

Federal-court hours and hourly rate

The plaintiffs claimed 70.1 hours for work in the federal case. Because the court applied the same reduction for limited success to work on the fee motion, it awarded compensation for 35 federal-court hours.

The plaintiffs requested hourly rates of $450 for administrative work and $475 for federal-court work. The court found that $425 per hour was reasonable for both types of work. It declined to award a higher federal-court rate, citing late and improper filings, inconsistent billing statements, failure to comply with local rules, and inadequate preparation for the hearing.

Costs

The court explained that the IDEA permits recovery only of costs allowed under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and that requested costs must be supported by a certification that they were necessarily incurred. Because the plaintiffs did not adequately certify or explain the necessity of the claimed costs, the court denied the request for costs except for the amount ultimately awarded. The final order awarded $402 in costs.

Settlement offers

The District made settlement offers before the second administrative hearing. The court found both offers valid under the IDEA because they were made more than 10 days before the proceeding began.

The court nevertheless found that the plaintiffs obtained more favorable relief than the District offered. The administrative award provided more hours of compensatory education, individualized instruction by a credentialed special-education teacher outside regular school hours, and the ability to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. The offers instead provided fewer and more limited service hours, included a $5,000 lump sum, and required each side to bear its own fees and costs.

The court also found that the plaintiffs were substantially justified in rejecting the offers because the offers did not cover the attorneys’ fees the plaintiffs had already incurred. Therefore, the settlement offers did not bar recovery of fees incurred afterward.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. It awarded $22,227.50 for the administrative proceedings, based on 52.3 hours at $425 per hour, and $14,875 for work in the federal case, based on 35 hours at $425 per hour. The total award was $37,102.50 in attorneys’ fees and $402 in costs.