Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled Mar. 14, 2023

L.M. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-11175
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Summary JudgmentFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In L.M. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Torres granted in part and denied in part L.M.’s summary-judgment motion, awarding $52,933.34.

Who this affects

L.M. and RR. received a judgment for attorney’s fees and costs against the New York City Department of Education. The Department’s objections to the recommended award were overruled.

What happened

L.M. v. New York City Department of Education concerns L.M.’s request for attorney’s fees and related costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, arising from an earlier administrative proceeding involving RR., a child with a disability.

The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation and the Department of Education’s objections. It overruled those objections, adopted the recommendation, and granted in part and denied in part L.M.’s motion for summary judgment. The court entered judgment for L.M. totaling $52,933.34: $44,891.50 for fees from the administrative proceeding, $7,388.01 for fees in this federal case, and $653.83 in costs.

Judge Analisa Torres also denied L.M.’s late request for more time to object to the recommendation and did not consider objections included in L.M.’s later response. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
L.M. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-11175
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Mar. 14, 2023

Background

L.M., individually and on behalf of RR., a child with a disability, sued the New York City Department of Education for attorney’s fees and related costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law concerning education for children with disabilities. L.M. moved for summary judgment, asking the court to resolve the fee dispute without a trial.

The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses, who issued a report and recommendation. The recommendation was that L.M.’s motion be granted in part and denied in part and that L.M. receive $52,933.34: $44,891.50 for attorney’s fees from the underlying administrative proceeding, $7,388.01 for attorney’s fees in the federal action, and $653.83 in costs.

Objections and Review

The Department of Education objected to the recommended fee award. It argued that the hourly rates for L.M.’s counsel were too high, that unreasonable billing and travel time should be excluded, that the total award should be reduced, and that a statutory fee limit should apply after the Department made a written offer.

The court determined that the objections repeated arguments already made before Magistrate Judge Moses. It therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake in the record, and found none. The court overruled the Department’s objections and adopted the recommendation.

L.M. asked for extra time to object after the deadline had passed. The court denied that request. It also stated that it would not consider objections contained in L.M.’s later response to the Department’s objections.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part L.M.’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of L.M. for $52,933.34, consisting of $44,891.50 in fees from the underlying administrative proceeding, $7,388.01 in fees for the federal action, and $653.83 in costs. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the relevant motions and close the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.