M. S. v. Lake Elisinore Unified School District

Filing 55

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder RE: Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 32 ; and Plaintiff's Motion to Alter Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) 46 . The Court DENIES plaintiff M.S.'s, a minor, through her parents, (collectively, "Student") motion to amend the Courts prior ruling. The Court finds that Student may recover for her reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Student's final award of attorneys' fees is: $46,977.50. The total amount of costs for which Student may recover is therefore: $3202.95. Student's total award of attorneys' fees and costs is: $50,180.45. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

January 13, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS (Dkt. 32, filed August 7,
2015)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT PURSUANT
TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(e) (Dkt. 46,
filed October 27, 2015)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local Rule 7-15.
I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

This case arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the
“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. On August 14, 2012, plaintiff M.S., a minor, through
her parents, (collectively, “Student”) initiated a due process hearing before the Office of
Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) against her school district, the Lake Elsinore Unified
School District (the “District”). Dkt. 31, at 9. In brief, Student alleged that the District
had violated the IDEA by failing to provide her a free appropriate public education
(“FAPE”). Id. A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) on
February 19-21, 27-28, and March 4-5, 2013. Id. at 10. Plaintiff presented a number of
issues during her hearing, but on May 22, 2013, the ALJ issued her decision in favor of
the District on all issues. Id. at 10.
On August 26, 2013, Student filed an appeal in this Court seeking reversal of the
ALJ’s decision on some of the issues presented at her administrative hearing. Dkt. 31, at
1. The Court held a hearing on January 21, 2015. Id. On July 24, 2015, the Court issued
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

its ruling finding for Student on some, but not all, of the issues presented to the Court and
ultimately reversing the decision of the ALJ. Id. at 23.
On August 7, 2015, Student filed the instant motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Dkt. 32. On October 13, 2015, the Court issued an order determining that, while plaintiff
was entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, she was not entitled to recover for all of the
hours her attorneys had worked on her case. Dkt. 45. Rather, the Court determined that
student could only receive attorneys’ fees for hours spent on claims for which the Court
ruled in her favor or on which the Court overturned the ALJ. Nonetheless, based on the
billing statements provided by Student’s attorneys, the Court was unable to determine the
amount of work spent on each of Student’s distinct claims. The Court, therefore, ordered
Student’s attorneys to submit “supplemented time sheets clearly indicating the division of
their work based on the distinct claims presented to the Court and in the administrative
hearing.” Id. at 5. Moreover, the Court instructed Student’s attorneys to “clearly
describe the tasks for which they billed Student so that the Court can determine whether
the time billed was reasonable and whether any work was duplicative.” Id.
In the Court’s order, it also determined that a reasonable hourly rate for Student’s
attorney in her district court appeal, Tania Whiteleather, was $425. However, the Court
determined that Student had provided insufficient documentation for the Court to
determine the reasonable hourly rate for her attorney in her administrative hearing, Ralph
Lewis. Accordingly, the Court directed Lewis to submit declarations and evidence of
prior court awards specifically addressing the reasonable hourly rate for his work.
Finally, the Court determined that Student was generally entitled to recover for the
costs associated with her administrative hearing and district court appeal. However, the
Court found that Student had submitted insufficient documentation for the Court to
determine whether Student was entitled to recover one of her requested costs: the cost of
preparing evidence books and binders for her administrative hearing. The Court,
therefore, instructed student to submit supplemental briefing in support of these requested
costs.
On October 27, 2015, plaintiff filed a supplemental brief in support of her motion
for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. 47. Plaintiff also filed a motion requesting that,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the Court amend its prior ruling that
the reasonable hourly rate for plaintiff’s attorney, Tania Whiteleather, was $425 per hour.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Dkt. 46. On November 3, 2015, defendant filed its supplemental brief in opposition to
plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. 50. On November 30, 2015,
defendant filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to amend the Court’s prior ruling, Dkt.
52, and on December 7, 2015, plaintiff filed a reply, Dkt. 53. Having carefully
considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

ANALYSIS
A.

Student’s Motion to Amend the Court’s Prior Ruling

Student requests that the Court amend its earlier ruling regarding the appropriate
hourly rate for her attorney, Tania Whiteleather, in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent
decision in United States, Moser v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency, 802 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.
2015) (“Moser”). Relief under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona
Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). “There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion
may be granted: (1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon
which the judgment is based; (2) the moving party presents newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest
injustice; or (4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington
Northern Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks,
citations, and alterations omitted); see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
Here, Student contends that the Moser decision constitutes an “intervening change
in controlling law.” The Court disagrees. In Moser, the Ninth Circuit considered an
appeal of an award of attorneys’ fees for a claimant who prevailed in a civil forfeiture
proceeding under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”). Moser,
802 F.3d at 1100. The claimant requested an award of attorneys’ fees at a rate of $500
per hour. Id. at 1106. He submitted five declarations in support of this rate, and the
Government did not contest the market rate supported by these declarations. Id.
Nonetheless, the district court determined that an appropriate hourly rate was only $300
per hour. Id. The Ninth Circuit ruled that this was an abuse of discretion. Id. First, the
Ninth Circuit held that “[b]ecause the government did not contest the market fee rate
supported by these declarations, the district court was required to presume that rate
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

reasonable.” Id. And the Ninth Circuit held that “[t]he district court . . . erred by relying
on an award almost nine years old in determining the prevailing market hourly rate.” Id.
at 1107. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s fee award. Id. at
1109.
However, nothing in Moser constitutes an “intervening change in the law.” At
most, Moser is simply a further decision applying long standing precedent in this circuit
regarding the award of attorneys’ fees. In that regard, while Moser may clarify or
provide further guidance regarding the determination of fee awards, it does not change
the law in any material respect.1
Moreover, even having considered Moser, the Court finds that it is readily
distinguishable from this case. First, unlike Moser, here the District has contested the
market fee rate proposed by Student. For example, it has submitted evidence of prior
court orders awarding Whiteleather fees at rates considerably lower than $500 per hour.
Dkt. 38, Exs. 1-4. Accordingly, Student’s proposed rate for Whiteleather’s services was
not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness in this case. In addition, Student contends
that the Court erred when it considered prior court orders addressing services provided
more than two years prior to Whiteleather’s services in this case. Specifically, she
contends that it was an error for the Court to consider the awards in Struble v. Fallbrook
Union High School Dist., 2012 WL 4109157 (S.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2012), which addressed
services Whiteleather provided in 2009, and I.S. v. Charter Oak Unified School District,
Case No. 05-cv-01427-DSF (C.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2007), which addressed services
Whiteleather provided in 2006. However, nothing in Moser suggests that a court may not
consider a prior court order simply because it is more than two years old. Rather, in
Moser, the Ninth Circuit held only that the district court erred in that case by relying on
an award almost nine years old. Moser, 802 F.3d at 1107.

1

In fact, at several points in the Moser opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the
law regarding fee awards is “well established.” See, e.g., Moser, 802 F.2d at 1105 (“The
evidentiary burdens governing fee motions are well established.”); Id. at 1106 (referring
to the “established standard when determining a reasonable hourly rate”) (emphasis
added).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Student places particular emphasis on the fact that the Court mentioned the
decision in I.S. v. Charter Oak Unified School District, in which a judge in this district
determined that Whiteleather’s reasonable rate was only $250 per hour. However, in this
Court’s prior order, it did not award Whiteleather attorneys’ fees at a rate of $250 per
hour, rather it awarded fees at a rate of $425 per hour. In determining that this was an
appropriate rate for Whiteleather’s services, the Court considered the declarations
submitted by Student, which indicated that a reasonable rate for an attorney in
Whiteleather’s field might range from $350 to $675 per hour. And the Court considered
the fact that Student had identified no prior court decision in which a court awarded
Whiteleather fees at her requested rate of $500 per hour. Finally, the Court noted that in
two relatively recent decisions in this district, judges had determined that a reasonable
hourly rate for Whiteleather’s services was $400 per hour. See Beauchamp v. Anaheim
Union High School District, Case No. 13-cv-01965-MWF (C.D. Cal. Jun 26, 2014); C.B.
v. Garden Grove Unified School District, 2012 WL 161806 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012).
Based on all of these factors and considerations, the Court determined that $425 per hour
was a reasonable rate for Whiteleather’s services in this case. In her motion, Student has
submitted no new evidence which would cause the Court to reconsider its prior ruling
and, as already stated, the Court does not consider the decision in Moser to constitute an
“intervening change in controlling law.” Accordingly, the Court DENIES Student’s
motion to amend the Court’s prior ruling.
B.

The Reasonable Hourly Rate of Ralph Lewis

In her motion for attorneys’ fees, plaintiff contended that a reasonable hourly rate
for Lewis’ work during her administrative hearing was $500 per hour. In the Court’s
prior order it found that “$500 per hour is an excessive rate for Lewis’ work in this case.”
Dkt. 45, at 6. However, the Court was unable to determine an appropriate hourly rate for
Lewis’ work because plaintiff had “ identified no prior court decisions and ha[d]
submitted no declarations, other than Lewis’ own declaration, specifically addressing the
quality of Lewis’ work, his experience, or what would constitute a reasonable rate for his
services.” Id. (citing Miller v. San Mateo-Foster City Unified Sch. Dist., 318 F. Supp. 2d
851, 865 (N.D. Cal. May 24, 2004) (“It is the fee applicant’s burden to produce evidence,
other than the declarations of interested counsel, that ‘the requested rates are in line with
those prevailing in the community’ ”)(citations omitted)).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

In her supplemental briefing student again requests that the Court award attorneys’
fees for Lewis’ work at a rate of $500 per hour. In support of this request, Student has
submitted the declarations of both Lewis and Whiteleather, both of whom contend that
$500 per hour is a reasonable rate in light of Lewis’ experience. Lewis Supp. Decl. ¶ 2;
Whiteleather Supp. Decl. ¶ 2. Student has also submitted the declaration of Maureen
Graves, an attorney in the field of special education who states that she is familiar with
Lewis’ work. Graves Decl. ¶ 5. Graves states that Lewis’ firm is known for litigating
forcefully and achieiving excellent outcomes via settlement and hearing. Id. Graves
further states that she charges a rate of $500 per hour and that Lewis’ requested rate of
$500 per hour is on the “low-end” given his experience, reputation, and degree of success
in the field. Id. ¶ 8.
However, despite the Court’s express instruction, Lewis’ has failed to submit any
prior court orders awarding him attorneys’ fees, let alone an award at a rate of $500 per
hour. Moreover, in support of her motion for attorneys’ fees student submitted two
declarations from attorneys addressing appropriate hourly rates for work performed
during an administrative hearing. These attorneys, Mandy Leigh and David Grey, stated
that they charge $375-$450 and $450 per hour, respectively, for work performed during
an administrative hearing. Dkt. 32-7, Leigh Decl. ¶ 7; Dkt. 32-8, Grey Decl. ¶ 3. And
both attorneys’ indicated that they charge a lower hourly rate for administrative hearings
than for district court appeals. Id. Accordingly, the Court finds that Student has
submitted insufficient evidence to justify a rate of $500 per hour for Lewis’ work during
her administrative hearing. Instead, based on the evidence submitted by Student, the
Court finds that an appropriate rate for Lewis’ work is $350 per hour.
C.

Students’ Claimed Attorneys’ Fees

In the Court’s prior order, it determined that Student was entitled to attorneys’ fees
because she was the prevailing party in this case. However, the Court also determined
that Student’s requested fees must be reduced to reflect that she had only partially
prevailed. A district court can reduce the hours requested in an attorneys’ fee application
in one of two ways: “First, the court may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee
request, and exclude those hours for which it would be unreasonable to compensate the
prevailing party. Second, when faced with a massive fee application the district court has
the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 6 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

claimed or in the final lodestar figure as a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee
application.” Moser, 802 F.3d at 1108 (citations omitted).
The Court initially attempted to utilize the first of these two methods, by
conducting an “hour-by-hour” analysis of all of Student’s claimed hours. However, the
Court determined that, based on the time sheets submitted by Student’s attorneys with her
motion for attorneys’ fees, it was not possible to determine the amount of work spent on
Student’s successful claims as opposed to her unsuccessful claims. Accordingly, the
Court directed Student’s attorneys to submit supplemental time sheet clearly indicating
the amount of work spent on each of Student’s distinct claims.
Unfortunately, Student’s attorneys failed to comply with the Court’s order. Rather,
they have resubmitted their original time sheets with one addition: next to nearly all of
the time entries Student’s attorney’s have indicated that those billed hours were devoted
to “all” of Student’s claims. These amended time sheets provide the Court with no
additional guidance regarding the appropriate award of attorneys’ fees in this case. The
Court must therefore use the second method to reduce a requested award of attorneys’
fees by making “across-the-board” percentage cuts to the final lodestar figure.
Here, Student obtained a significant result. The Court determined that the District
had denied Student a FAPE and ultimately reversed the decision of the ALJ. However,
the Court did not award Student all of the relief she requested. For example, at her
administrative hearing, Student presented six issues and the ALJ ruled against her on all
of these issues. On appeal, this Court reversed the ALJ on, at most, three of these issues.
However, even within these individual issues, plaintiff did not obtain complete success.
Specifically, Student appealed the ALJ’s decision that the District had adequately
assessed her in all areas of disability. Student asserted that the District had failed to
assess her in the areas of anxiety, behavior, and sensory integration. This Court found
that the District had failed to assess Student in the areas of behavior and anxiety, but had
adequately assessed Student in the area of sensory integration. Likewise, in her
administrative hearing Student had requested that the District reimburse her for various
educational and medical expenses. The ALJ determined that Student was not entitled to
be reimbursed for any of these expenses. On appeal, this Court determined that Student
was entitled to reimbursement; however, the Court fashioned limited remedies that

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 7 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

provided less relief than Student had initially requested.2 Accordingly, while the Court
ultimately reversed the ALJ’s ruling in favor of the District, it did so to only a limited
degree.
Furthermore, given the manner in which Student’s attorneys have maintained their
billing records, the Court is unable to assess the reasonableness of plaintiff’s claimed
hours or whether any of those hours were duplicative. Time spent on work that is
“excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” should generally not be compensated in
an award of attorneys’ fees. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). This
failure to maintain clear and detailed billing records warrants a reduction of plaintiff’s
claimed hours. See id. at 436 (“[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing
entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly
rates.”); see also Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[W]hen
faced with a massive fee application the district court has the authority to make
across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final
lodestar figure as a practical means of trimming the fat from a fee application.”) (citations
omitted).
The Court finds that Student’s award of attorneys’ fees should be reduced by 50%.
Particularly given the limited degree of success Student obtained in her district court
appeal, and taking into account the failure of Student’s attorneys to maintain clear and
detailed billing records, the Court finds that this is an appropriate reduction. Other
district courts in the Ninth Circuit have imposed similar reductions in cases where a
plaintiff obtained only a limited degree of success. See, e.g., L.R. v. Hollister Sch. Dist.,
2014 WL 1118019, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) (finding that plaintiff’s partial degree
of success warranted a 50% reduction in attorneys’ fees); J.M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch.
Dist., 2011 WL 1326905, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2011) (lack of success on “most subissues” and on four out of five school years warranted reduction of 66.67%); S.A. v.
Tulare Cnty. Office of Educ., 2009 WL 4048656, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2009)
(reducing fees by 90% in light of “partial and limited success”).

2

For example, in her administrative hearing, Student requested reimbursement for
compensatory education for the period of January 25, 2011 through December 13, 2012.
Dkt. 4. This Court ultimately awarded Student reimbursement for the much shorter
period of September 16, 2012 through November 7, 2012.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 8 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

D.

Date

‘O’

January 13, 2015

Student’s Request for Costs

Student requests reimbursement for the following costs included in her attorney’s
invoices:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Clerical work related to her administrative hearing: $2,907.25 (20.05 hours at $145
per hour)
Clerical work related to her district court appeal: $1,046.25 (13.95 hours at $75 per
hour)
Copying documents and evidence books for her administrative hearing: $2,424.47
Evidence binders for her administrative hearing: $428.48
Subpoenas in connection with her administrative hearing: $210.00
Fees related to service of documents in her district court appeal: $140.00

Lewis Decl., Ex. 1; Whiteleather Decl., Ex. 7.
The Court has already determined that Student may recover the $350 her attorneys
spent on serving documents and issuing subpoenas. The Court has also disallowed
Student’s request for reimbursement of clerical work. However, the Court requested
supplemental briefing regarding Student’s request for reimbursement of the cost of
preparing evidence books and binders for use in her administrative hearing.
In his supplemental declaration, Student’s attorney Ralph Lewis explained that
administrative hearings in special education cases are document intensive. Lewis Supp.
Decl., at 3. Lewis declared that in preparing for Student’s administrative hearing, he
assembled three sets of binders each including 81 documents and approximately 1400
pages. Id. Lewis further explained that these documents are critical to the progression of
a due process hearing and that most of the testimony in these hearings has to do with
identifying who generated documents, what information they did and did not include, and
whether the information reported in these documents was accurate, supported by sound
educational theory, and in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations. Id.
Under the IDEA parties are entitled to recover costs for, among other things,
printing and making copies of any materials necessarily obtained for use in the case.
Torrance Unified School Dist. v. Magee, 2008 WL 4906088, at*5 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 9 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

January 13, 2015

Title

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

2008) (citing Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006)).
Based on Lewis’ supplemental declaration, the Court is satisfied that these evidentiary
books and binders were “necessarily obtained” for use in Student’s administrative
hearing. Accordingly, Student may recover for this cost.
V.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court finds that Student may recover for her
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Regarding Student’s request for attorneys’ fees:
•

•

•

The Court finds that plaintiff’s attorney, Ralph Lewis should be reimbursed at a
rate of $350 per hour. Lewis claims that he spent a total of 144.10 hours on
Student’s administrative hearing. The lodestar figure for Lewis’ work is therefore:
$50,435.
The Court finds that Tania Whiteleather should be reimbursed at a rate of $425 per
hour. Whiteleather claims that she spent a total of 102.40 hours on Student’s
district Court appeal. The lodestar figure for Whiteleather’s work is therefore:
$43,520.
The combined lodestar figure for the work of Student’s attorneys is, therefore,
$93,955. The Court finds that, in light of Student’s relative degree of success and
in light of Student’s attorneys’ failure to maintain clear and detailed billing
records, this figure should be reduced by 50%. Accordingly, Student’s final award
of attorneys’ fees is: $46,977.50
Regarding Student’s request for costs, the Court finds that:

•
•

Student may recover the costs her attorneys spent on serving documents and
issuing subpoenas: $350
Student may recover the costs of preparing evidence binder and books for her
administrative hearing: $2852.95

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 10 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:13-cv-01484-CAS(SPx)

Title
•

Date

‘O’

January 13, 2015

M.S. V. LAKE ELSINORE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
The total amount of costs for which Student may recover is therefore: $3202.95
Accordingly, Student’s total award of attorneys’ fees and costs is: $50,180.45
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 11 of 11