B. v. New York City Department of Education

Background

C.B. brought the federal action individually and on behalf of her minor child, C.M., under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The remaining issue was the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs connected with two underlying administrative proceedings and this federal fee action.

In Case No. 166945, C.B. alleged that the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide C.M. with a free appropriate public education during the 2017–18 school year. After seven non-consecutive hearing days, the impartial hearing officer ruled for C.B. in May 2019, finding that the DOE had denied C.M. a free appropriate public education and ordering relief.

In Case No. 177990, C.B. alleged that the DOE failed to offer C.M. a free appropriate public education during the 2017–18 and 2018–19 school years. A scheduled June 2019 hearing took place without a DOE representative appearing. In August 2019, the hearing officer ruled for C.B. and ordered the relief sought in the due process complaint.

C.B. filed this federal case in August 2020, seeking attorneys’ fees and costs under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3), as well as an order requiring the DOE to implement the hearing officer’s decisions. The parties later resolved the claims about implementing the ordered relief. The fee request was the only remaining issue.

Positions and legal standard

The DOE did not dispute that C.B. was a prevailing party entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. It disputed the reasonableness of the requested amounts, including the hourly rates, time billed, and certain expenses.

The court applied the summary-judgment standard: summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. For IDEA fees, the court used the lodestar method, which generally multiplies a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours worked. The party seeking fees must support the requested rates and hours with satisfactory evidence.

Hourly rates

The court awarded these rates:

- $400 per hour for Andrew Cuddy, Michael Cuddy, Lance Salisbury, and Nina Aasen; - $250 per hour for Kevin Mendillo; - $125 per hour for Shobna Cuddy, Amanda Pinchak, Sarah Woodward, and John Slaski; and - $100 per hour for the remaining non-attorney timekeepers.

The court declined to award any fees for Raul Velez’s two-tenths of an hour of work because the work was clerical and minimal. The court also reduced Salisbury’s travel rate to $200 per hour, or half of his approved regular rate.

Hours and costs

For the underlying proceedings, the court reduced Salisbury’s time for preparing the due process complaints and an unsubmitted complaint, and reduced the time spent preparing the closing brief. It did not reduce the time billed for hearing preparation.

For the federal action, the court found that the litigation was straightforward and reduced the federal fees by 25 percent across the board. The court concluded that the fee request should be reduced to reflect excessive time spent litigating the fee issue itself.

The court rejected fax costs because the record did not show that faxing was necessary or reasonable. It also reduced the claimed printing costs and awarded postage and the $400 federal filing fee. The court declined to find that the DOE unreasonably prolonged the proceedings because C.B. had not provided evidence establishing that conclusion in this case.

Disposition

The court granted C.B.’s motion for summary judgment. It awarded $80,818.13 in attorneys’ fees, $711.91 in costs, and post-judgment interest at the applicable statutory rate. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment, terminate the motion, and close the case.