W. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

H.W., individually and on behalf of her son, M.W., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) concerning two administrative proceedings enforcing M.W.’s right to a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). H.W.’s lawyers obtained decisions requiring reimbursement or direct payment of M.W.’s tuition at Gersh Academy for the 2017–2018 and 2019–2020 school years. The federal claims concerning implementation of the second tuition order were resolved, leaving only H.W.’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.

H.W. requested $109,639.43 for the two administrative proceedings and the federal action, plus post-judgment interest. The request included $53,577.86 for the first administrative proceeding, $35,797.07 for the second, and $20,264.50 for the federal action. The DOE did not dispute H.W.’s entitlement to fees as the prevailing party, meaning the party that obtained relief materially changing the parties’ legal relationship. It disputed the reasonableness of the requested rates and hours.

Legal standard

The IDEA permits a court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing party. The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. In evaluating the rates and hours, the court considered prevailing market rates, the case’s complexity, the lawyers’ experience, the results obtained, and other relevant factors.

Hourly rates

The court found that the proceedings were relatively standard, minimally contested, and not especially difficult. The DOE did not present witnesses and conceded that it had denied M.W. a FAPE during both relevant school years. The hearings lasted less than six hours combined, although H.W.’s lawyers obtained all the relief she sought. The court concluded that the successful result did not, by itself, justify the requested rates.

The court approved the following rates:

- $400 per hour for Andrew Cuddy, Michael Cuddy, and Jason Sterne; - $300 per hour for Kevin Mendillo; - $200 per hour for Britton Bouchard; - $125 per hour for senior paralegal Shobna Cuddy; and - $100 per hour for Allison Bunnell, Amanda Pinchak, Khrista Smith, Cailin O’Donnell, Emma Bianco, Sarah Woodard, and Diana Gagliostro.

Hours

The court found that some billing was excessive, redundant, or administrative. Examples included drafting two substantially overlapping complaints, having two experienced lawyers analyze favorable administrative decisions, billing for receiving or filing documents and reviewing electronic notifications, and spending 11.2 hours preparing a federal brief whose substance was largely copied from similar filings. Rather than review every billing entry, the court reduced the hours billed by all attorneys and paralegals by 20 percent across the board.

Costs and travel

H.W.’s request included printing, copying, postage, tolls, filing fees, and $2,250 for Mendillo’s travel time. The court limited Mendillo’s compensable travel to one hour each way for each trip to New York City and set that travel time at $150 per hour, one-half of his approved hourly rate. The court also reduced printing and copying expenses from 50 cents per page to 10 cents per page.

Settlement offer

The DOE made a $54,500 settlement offer for H.W.’s fee claims on December 30, 2020. After applying the court’s reductions, the fee award calculated as of that date was not more favorable than the offer. Nevertheless, the court found that H.W. was substantially justified in rejecting it because the offer addressed only attorneys’ fees and related expenses, while claims concerning the DOE’s unpaid tuition obligation were still unresolved. The court therefore ruled that the IDEA’s settlement restriction did not bar fees for work performed after the offer.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as post-judgment interest, with the stated modifications to hourly rates, hours, travel time, and printing and copying expenses. The court ordered H.W. to submit a proposed judgment by March 1, 2022, and directed the DOE to object by March 8, 2022, if it disagreed. The opinion did not state the final dollar amount of the award.