JONES v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding the plaintiff's 10 Motion for Summary Judgment and the defendant's 12 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 18, 2015. (lcbah2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LAVONDA JONES,
Parent and Next Friend of D.T., a minor,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 15-155 (BAH)
Judge Beryl A. Howell

v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The plaintiffs, Lavonda Jones and her minor child, brought this action against the District
of Columbia seeking a total of $45,628.40 in attorneys’ fees incurred pursuing an administrative
proceeding brought under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and Individuals with
Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (collectively, the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.
The case was randomly referred to a Magistrate Judge for full case management. See Referral to
Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 3. Thereafter, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment. See
Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No.10; Def.’s Mem. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. J. & Opp’n
Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 13.
On July 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommendeding that the
plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and the defendant’s Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment be denied. See Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) at 2, ECF No. 18. Of
the more than $45,000 in fees requested, the R&R explained that the District contested only

1

$653.025 in entries invoiced in quarter-hour increments. Id. at 10. 1 The plaintiffs readily
admitted that the entries invoiced in quarter-hour increments were typographical errors and
proposed reducing the fee request further “as contrition for this small error.” R&R at 10. Citing
relevant authority, the R&R concluded that this reduction was unnecessary, recommended that
entries billed to the quarter-hour not be stricken, and admonished the plaintiffs’ counsel that
future timesheets must reflect billing entries in six-minute increments. Id. at 10–11.
Consequently, the R&R recommended that the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment be
granted and the Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment be denied. The R&R further
recommended that the plaintiffs be awarded total fees in the amount of $45,272.77. Id. at 11.
The Court takes note of, and concurs in, the Magistrate Judge’s observation that the
District’s “[q]uarreling over eleven minutes out of 132.62 hours billed—especially in light of the
fact that [the plaintiffs] appeared willing to waive those disputed minutes—is beyond
comprehension.” Id. at 11. Indeed, with little more than the cost of the filing fee at stake, the
District's decision to pursue this matter to resolution defies easy explanation.
The R&R cautioned the parties that failing to file a timely objection within 14 days of the
party’s receipt of the R&R, could result in their waiving the right to appeal an order of the
District Court adopting the recommendations. See id. at 12. No objection to the R&R has been
timely filed, and the time to file such an objection has lapsed, see Local Civil Rule 72.3(b), and
thus, any objections are deemed waived. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–55 (1985).
The Court, upon independent consideration of the pending motions and the entire record
herein, concurs with the recommendations made in the R&R. Accordingly it is hereby

1

The District initially contested an additional $379.62 in overbilling resulting from a discrepancy in the hourly rate
that the plaintiffs’ attorney applied for entries between January 2014 and May 2014, R&R.at 1 n.1, 10. In their
response, the plaintiffs conceded and agreed to reduce their request for fees to $45,272.77. Id. at 10.

2

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 18, is ADOPTED in full;
and it is further
ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the
Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 12, is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the
defendant pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees in the amount of $45,272.77 by September 16, 2015,
unless the parties reach an alternative mutually agreeable date.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by Hon. Beryl A.
Howell, United States District Court
Judge
DN: cn=Hon. Beryl A. Howell, United
States District Court Judge, o=U.S.
District Court for the District of
Columbia, ou,
email=[e-mail]
ts.gov, c=US
Date: 2015.08.18 09:30:04 -04'00'

Date: August 18, 2015

_________________________
BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge

3