L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education
356 F. Supp. 3d 713 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a multi-year Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case, a district court may calculate a prevailing party's attorney's fees using current market rates to compensate for a delay in payment and may award fees for time spent on unsuccessful but factually related claims. However, the court may apply a percentage reduction to the total hours claimed to account for disfavored billing practices, such as quarter-hour increments.
Facts:
- L.H. is a fifteen-year-old boy with Down Syndrome.
- From 2009 to 2013, L.H. attended Normal Park Elementary School, a public school operated by the Hamilton County Department of Education (HCDE).
- In May 2013, L.H.'s parents rejected the individualized education program (IEP) developed for him by HCDE.
- Following the rejection of the IEP, L.H.'s parents unilaterally enrolled him at The Montessori School of Chattanooga (TMS), a private school, for the 2013-2014 school year.
- L.H. remained enrolled at TMS for his education through the eighth grade.
Procedural Posture:
- L.H.'s parents (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in federal district court against the Hamilton County Department of Education (HCDE) and the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE), asserting claims under the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504.
- The district court approved a settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and TDOE.
- After a bench trial on the merits of the IDEA claims against HCDE, the district court ruled that HCDE's proposed IEP was improper but denied Plaintiffs reimbursement for the private school tuition.
- Both Plaintiffs (as appellants) and HCDE (as cross-appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed that HCDE's IEP was improper but reversed the district court's denial of reimbursement, holding that Plaintiffs were entitled to it. The appellate court deemed the ADA and Section 504 claims 'redundant' and did not rule on them.
- Following the appeal, Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs in the U.S. District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a prevailing party in a multi-year Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) case entitled to an award of attorney's fees calculated using current hourly rates for all hours worked, including time spent on related but ultimately unadjudicated claims, subject to a percentage reduction for the use of quarter-hour billing?
Opinions:
Majority - Collier, J.
Yes. A prevailing party in a multi-year IDEA case is entitled to attorney's fees calculated using current hourly rates, including for work on related claims, but the court may reduce the total hours for imprecise billing practices. The court determined that Plaintiffs were the prevailing party and thus entitled to fees under the IDEA. The calculation begins with the lodestar amount (reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable rate). The court found the attorneys' requested hourly rates of $400 and $275 to be reasonable based on their experience, the complexity of the case, the contingent nature of the fee, and supporting evidence. It was appropriate to use current, rather than historic, rates for the entire litigation period to compensate for the significant delay in payment over nearly five years. The court also found that time spent on related but unadjudicated ADA and Section 504 claims was compensable because those claims arose from a 'common core of facts' with the successful IDEA claim. However, because Plaintiffs' counsel used quarter-hour billing increments, a practice disfavored for its potential to inflate hours, the court applied a 7.5% across-the-board reduction to the total hours worked. After considering the twelve 'Johnson' factors, particularly the high degree of success Plaintiffs achieved, the court found no further adjustment to the lodestar was warranted.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a clear framework for calculating attorney's fees in protracted civil rights litigation, specifically under the IDEA. It affirms the district court's discretion to use current market rates to counteract the economic impact of delayed payment, thereby incentivizing counsel to undertake long, complex, and financially risky cases on behalf of plaintiffs. The decision also solidifies the 'common core of facts' principle, ensuring that attorneys are not penalized for pursuing viable, alternative legal theories that are factually intertwined with a successful claim. Finally, it demonstrates a practical judicial remedy for dealing with disfavored billing practices—a percentage reduction—which promotes 'rough justice' without requiring a burdensome line-by-line audit of time entries.
Unlock the full brief for L.H. v. Hamilton County Department of Education