R.S. v. New York City Department Of Education
- James Oetken
- 1:21-cv-02257
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In R.S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Oetken granted in part and denied in part a fee motion, awarding $150,968.40.
The ruling affects R.S. and A.S., their counsel at the Law Offices of Irina Roller, PLLC, and the New York City Department of Education and former Chancellor Meisha Porter.
What happened
R.S., individually and for his minor child A.S., sued the New York City Department of Education and former Chancellor Meisha Porter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After an earlier ruling granting a permanent injunction, R.S. and A.S. sought $203,713 in attorney’s fees and costs for work by the Law Offices of Irina Roller, PLLC.
The court agreed that the plaintiffs were entitled to fees but found that some requested hourly rates and billed hours were too high. It set lower rates for the attorneys and staff and reduced the hours billed for both the administrative proceedings and the federal case by 10 percent.
Judge Oetken granted in part and denied in part the fee motion. He awarded plaintiff’s counsel $150,968.40 in fees and costs, plus post-judgment interest required by law, and directed the Clerk to close the motion and the case.
The detailed version
- R.S. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:21-cv-02257
- James Oetken
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
R.S. filed the lawsuit individually and on behalf of his minor child, A.S., against the New York City Department of Education and former Chancellor Meisha Porter under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The court referred to its earlier factual findings and legal conclusions granting a permanent injunction. The plaintiffs then moved under the Act’s fee-shifting provision for $203,713 in attorney’s fees and costs for work performed by the Law Offices of Irina Roller, PLLC.
Legal standard
The Act allows a court to award attorney’s fees and costs to a party that prevailed. A party prevails when the court provides relief on the merits that changes the legal relationship between the parties and directly benefits the plaintiff. The court calculated a presumptively reasonable fee by considering reasonable hourly rates and whether the hours billed were excessive, duplicative, or unnecessary.
Hourly rates
The Department did not dispute that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party, but it disputed the requested fees. The plaintiffs requested rates ranging from $550 per hour for Irina Roller to $125 per hour for a legal-assistant paralegal. The Department proposed lower rates.
The court found these rates reasonable for the work performed: $450 per hour for Roller, Benjamin Hinerfeld, and Mary Jo Whateley; $350 per hour for Danielle McGee, Sherif K. Moussa, and Jill Hornig; $150 per hour for Maria Mandilas; $125 per hour for Gaitree Bhoge; $120 per hour for Dianne Ho and Nancy L. Powell; and $100 per hour for all other paralegals. The court explained that it lacked information about Moussa’s and Hornig’s qualifications and experience and therefore set their rates at $350 per hour.
Hours billed
The Department argued that the law firm billed excessive time for both the administrative proceedings and the federal action. For the administrative proceedings, the court found the hours somewhat excessive but concluded that a 10 percent reduction was appropriate. The court also found the hours for the federal action somewhat excessive and applied a separate 10 percent reduction.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion. It awarded plaintiff’s counsel a total of $150,968.40, inclusive of fees and costs, rather than the $203,713 requested. The court also stated that plaintiff’s counsel was entitled to statutory post-judgment interest. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 62 and close the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.