M. et al v. St. Tammany Parish Public Schools

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31 ; ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 20 Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in that defendant, the St. Tammany Parish School Board, must pay to plaintiffs, S.M., by and through his parents and next friends, Tina M. and Shannon M., the full amount of $22,545.63 in reasonable attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 1/20/2016.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
S.M. BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND
NEXT FRIENDS, TINA M., AND SHANNON M.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-903

ST. TAMMANY PARISH PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SECTION “I” (2)

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees, as well as the
Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the objections
thereto by both plaintiffs and defendant. See Rec. Docs. 20, 31, 35, & 36. The Magistrate
Judge in this case has recommended that the Court partially grant and partially deny
plaintiffs' motion, granting plaintiffs attorneys' fees of $22,545.63, instead of the $48,073.00
sought in plaintiffs' motion. Compare Rec. Doc. 31, with Rec. Doc. 20.
Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation on the
grounds that the recommended fee rates are excessive and that the award includes hours
billed by plaintiffs' attorneys for services other than obtaining "stay-put protection for S.M."
See Rec. Doc. 35. Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation
on the grounds that the Magistrate Judge inappropriately reduced the fee rate of one of
plaintiffs' attorneys and erred in reducing fees by 50% upon a finding of block and excessive
billing by plaintiffs' attorneys. See Rec. Doc. 36-2.

Upon a de novo review1 of plaintiffs' motion, the record, applicable law, the Report
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and plaintiffs' and defendant's
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation, the Court hereby
approves the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. With one
exception, the Court concludes that the findings and reasoning in the Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation adequately address the objections of the parties and therefore
adopts it as the Court's opinion in this matter.
The only objection that the Court finds necessary to address separately is defendant's
contention that plaintiffs may not seek recovery of reasonable fees incurred collecting
attorneys' fees. See Rec. Doc. 35 at 2 (citing In re ASARCO, L.L.C. v. Jordan Hyden Womble
Culbreath & Holzer, P.C., 751 F.3d 291, 301 (5th Cir. 2014)). While the Magistrate Judge
did not directly address this argument, the Court finds it to be without merit. The Fifth
Circuit in In re ASARCO concluded that debtor's counsel in a bankruptcy proceeding could
not collect fees from the bankruptcy estate that were incurred defending counsel's initial fee

1

In an abundance of caution, the Court has conducted a de novo review,
acknowledging that there is some ambiguity as to whether the amount of attorneys' fees
and costs awarded is a dispositive or nondispositive issue. See Int'l Marine, LLC v. FDT,
LLC, Civ. A. No. 10-044, 2015 WL 914898 at *2 (E.D.La. Mar. 3, 2015) (Fallon, J.)
(conducting de novo review noting "[c]ourts have struggled with the appropriate
standard"); see also Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entertrainment, Civ. A. No. 07-6510,
2014 WL 1276346 at *1 (E.D.La. Mar. 27, 2014) (Morgan, J.) (concluding de novo is
the appropriate standard).
-2-

application for representing the debtor. See 751 F.3d at 299—301. The Fifth Circuit's holding
in that case is apparently limited to attorneys' fee disputes in the context of bankruptcy
matters. See id. at 300—301 (deciding attorneys' fee issue by reference to bankruptcy statutes
and secondary sources on bankruptcy law). Defendant does not cite, nor can the Court locate,
any case law indicating that bankruptcy law on attorneys' fees appropriately applies to cases
arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA").
While the Court is unaware of any cases directly addressing this issue in the context
of the IDEA, there is ample support to conclude that an attorneys' fee award pursuant to the
IDEA may include an award for fees incurred litigating a fee petition. As an initial matter,
the IDEA contains express guidance regarding attorneys' fees and explicitly prohibits the
award of attorneys' fees for certain types of legal services, but does not explicitly prohibit
awards for time spent pursuing attorneys' fees. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(D)—(G).
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that courts should construe
consistently its cases interpreting various statutes that authorize the award of "reasonable
attorneys' fees" to prevailing parties. See Innovation Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't, Inc., Civ. A.
No. 07-6510, 2014 WL 1276346 at *2 (E.D.La. Mar. 27, 2014) (Morgan, J.) (citing City of
Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 561—62, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992)). The
bankruptcy statute analyzed in In re ASARCO cannot reasonably be classified as a prevailing
party fee award statute. See 751 F.3d at 299—301 (analyzing 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)). Instead,
§ 330(a) merely provides for compensation to lawyers and other service providers for

-3-

"necessary services rendered," without requiring prevailing party status. See 11 U.S.C.
§ 330(a). Available precedent on statutes more analogous to the IDEA's prevailing-party-feeaward-provisions clearly allow compensation for time spent litigating a fee claim. See
Johnson v. State of Miss., 606 F.2d 635, 637—38 (5th Cir. 1979) (in context of Civil Rights
Attorney's Fees Awards Act, "attorney's fees may be awarded for time spent litigating the fee
claim"); see also Cruz v. Hauck, 762 F.2d 1230, 1233 (5th Cir. 1985) (same); see also
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES AND MANAGING FEE LITIGATION
33 n.201 (3d. 2015) (discussing "unanimous" view that attorneys' fees may include award for
time spent working on a fee petition). The Court therefore concludes that the IDEA permits
attorneys' fees awards that include fees incurred litigating a fee petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees, Record Doc.
20, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART in that defendant, the St. Tammany
Parish School Board, must pay to plaintiffs, S.M., by and through his parents and next
friends, Tina M. and Shannon M., the full amount of $22,545.63 in reasonable attorneys'
fees.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _20th_ day of January, 2016.

__________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-