Valentin-Marrero et al v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al

Filing 324

OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' petition for attorney's fees, and costs at 286 ; Response in Opposition at 303 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Raul M. Arias-Marxuach on 5/13/2021.(mrr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

JOSE VALENTÍN MARRERO, EMERITA
MERCADO ROMAN, PERSONALLY, AS
MEMBERS OF THEIR CONJUGAL
PARTNERSHIP AND ON BEHALF OF
THEIR SON GAJVM

CIVIL NO. 18-1286(RAM)

Plaintiffs
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO;
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF P.R.
Defendants

OPINION AND ORDER
RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH, District Judge
Pending

before

the

Court

are

Plaintiffs’

request

for

attorney’s fees and costs and Defendants’ opposition thereto.
(Docket Nos. 286 and 303, respectively). For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED IN PART and Defendants’
opposition is DENIED.

Plaintiffs are awarded attorney’s fees and

costs as calculated below.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 11, 2018, Plaintiffs José Valentín-Marrero and Emerita
Mercado-Roman

(“Plaintiffs”),

on

behalf

of

their

son

GAJVM,

brought the present action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)

2

and the Department of Education of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
(“DOE” or “Defendants”) seeking injunctive relief, reimbursement
of costs, and attorney’s fees for alleged violations of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA” or “Act”), 20
U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq. (Docket No. 1).
Upon adjudicating the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment,

the

Court

granted

in

part

Plaintiffs’

request

for

permanent injunction and ordered Plaintiffs to file their itemized
claim for attorney’s fees. (Docket Nos. 278 and 279). Accordingly,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion in Compliance with Order and Submitting
Itemized Statement of Attorney’s Fees, followed by a corrected
itemized

statement.

(Docket

Nos.

286

and

288-1).

Therein,

Plaintiffs stated that their legal counsel had agreed to a fixed
rate of $800.00, for the initial case work until December 2018,
and that subsequently his rate would be $60.00 an hour, plus costs.
(Docket No. 286 at 2). In total, Plaintiffs request a total amount
of $21,600.40 in attorney’s fees and costs.
Defendants filed an Opposition arguing that, because the
Court found that by February 22, 2019 the DOE had complied with
the IDEA by crafting a sufficient Individualized Education Plan
(“IEP”), any reasonable attorney’s fees should not surpass said
date. (Docket No. 303 at 2-3). In the alternative, Defendants
contend that if the Court finds that Plaintiffs should receive
attorney’s fees for obtaining a partial grant of their motion for

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)

3

summary judgment, the fees should be equivalent to one third (1/3)
of their itemized statement “since this was the remedy obtained
from all they requested in their Amended Complaint.” Id. at 3.
Lastly, Defendants posit that Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s
fees should be held in abeyance pending appeal. Id. at 4. The DOE
does not sustain these arguments with any citations or supporting
authorities. See L. CV. R. 7(a). Defendants do not object to any
specific entry of Plaintiffs’ itemized statement.
II. DISCUSSION
The IDEA authorizes a district court to “award reasonable
attorneys’ fees as part of the costs to a prevailing party who is
the

parent

of

a

child

with

a

disability.”

20

U.S.C.

§

1415(i)(3)(B). Attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to IDEA must “be
based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action or
proceeding arose for the kind and quality of services furnished.”
20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C). When adjudicating a request for fees
under the Act, courts “must determine whether: (1) a party is in
fact

a

“prevailing

party”;

(2)

the

compensation

sought

is

reasonable; and (3) if there are any additional but exceptional
considerations that may require and [sic] upward or downward
adjustment in the award.” Bristol-Navarro v. Puerto Rico Dep't of
Educ., 215 F. Supp. 3d 195, 198 (D.P.R. 2016) (citing Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433–34 (1983)). Within these parameters,
district courts have “a great deal of discretion” when awarding

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)

4

attorneys’ fees in IDEA cases. Gonzalez v. Puerto Rico Dep't of
Educ., 1 F. Supp. 2d 111, 114 (D.P.R. 1998).
A. A Prevailing Party
A plaintiff is “considered a prevailing party if he succeeds
on any significant issue in litigation that achieves some of the
benefit the party sought by bringing his suit.” Rodriguez v. Puerto
Rico, 764 F. Supp. 2d 338, 342 (D.P.R. 2011) (citing Farrar v.
Hobby,

506

U.S.

103,

113

(1992))

(emphasis

added).

Although

Plaintiffs did not obtain the totality of the relief requested,
they

certainly

meet

this

threshold.

Here,

as

in

Rodriguez,

“Defendants had to provide requested services and reimbursements
to

Plaintiffs,”

as

well

as

compensatory

education,

thereby

“cementing Plaintiffs' status as a prevailing party.” Id. Although
Defendants crafted an adequate IEP prior to the cross-motions for
summary judgment, Plaintiffs only received the relief sought by
pursuing the present litigation.
B. The Prevailing Rate
Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Antonio Borrés-Otero.
Defendants do not seek to adjust his rate and with good reason.
Attorney Borrés-Otero’s rate of $60.00 per hour is not only
reasonable, but significantly below the prevailing rate in the
community for IDEA litigation. See Zayas v. Puerto Rico, 451 F.
Supp. 2d 310, 316 (D.P.R. 2006) (finding that $110.00 per hour was
“at the lower end of the prevailing rate in the community” and

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)

5

assigning said rate to unidentified attorneys whose preparation,
education, and experience were unknown to the Court); Gonzalez, 1
F. Supp. 2d at 114 (holding that $125.00 per hour for office work
and $175.00 per hour for trial work was a reasonable rate for the
plaintiffs’ lead counsel in 1998); Rodriguez, 764 F. Supp. 2d at
344 (accepting the rate of $135.00 per hour).
C. The Reasonability of the Total Amount Sought
“The First Circuit has endorsed the ‘lodestar’ approach for
purposes

of

determining

whether

the

total

amount

sought

is

presumptively reasonable.” Bristol-Navarro, 215 F. Supp. 3d at
198. Pursuant to this method, “the judge calculates the time
counsel spent on the case, subtracts duplicative, unproductive, or
excessive hours, and then applies prevailing rates.” Gay Officers
Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir. 2001).
Plaintiffs claim a total of 283.84 hours of work for attorney
Borrés-Otero

from

conducting

detailed

a

December
review

2018
of

until
each

the

entry

present.
in

the

After

itemized

statement, the Court makes the following modifications:

12/20/2018 Prepared motion requesting order

Hours
Hours
Claimed Approved
2.85
2.00

8/08/2019

0.75

0.50

1.0

0.75

0.75

0.50

Date

1/23/2020

4/10/2020

Description
Drafted motion for extension of
time to amend the complaint
Prepared and filed joint motion
for extension of time as
discovery due date and other
matters
Drafted and filed motion In
Compliance with Order

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)
4/10/2020

Drafted and filed motion to
continue discovery until May 2020
4/13/2020
Drafted and filed motion to
continue deadline to file
dispositive motions.
7/16/2020
Prepared Motions Requesting
7/17/2020
further extensions to file
7/18/2020
Response to Defendant’s motion
for Summary Judgment
7/30/2020
Prepared motion supplementing
request for relief at motion for
summary judgment
7/30/2020
Prepared
motion
submitting
certified translation and motion
to restrict.
8/09/2020
Prepared informative motion as to
availability of Starbright
Academy and motion to file
Spanish documents
8/13/2020
Prepared Emergency Motion
Requesting Order to place minor
at Starbright Academy
9/01/2020
Prepared Motion to Stay
Proceedings, Rule 62
10/18/2020 Legal research as to procedures
and requirements for appeal,
drafted Notice of Appeal and
Motion to stay procedures pending
appeal.

6
1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.75

1.50

0.75

2.0

0.75

3.0

0.00

Furthermore, the Court shall reduce the 10.8 hours that were
related to unsuccessful settlement negotiations to 5 hours. The
283.84 hours for attorney’s fees requested by Plaintiffs are
adjusted to 268.69 hours.
D. Interpreter Costs and Translation Fees
Prevailing parties in IDEA litigation can recover costs “set
out in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, the general statute governing the taxation
of costs in federal court.” Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 298 (2006). Specifically, 28 U.S.C. §

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)

7

1920(6) provides that “compensation of interpreters, and salaries,
fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under
section

1828

of

this

title”

are

taxable

costs.

Therefore,

Plaintiffs’ request for the interpreter fees for the September 13,
2018 hearing is proper.
On

the

other

hand,

Local

Rule

5(c)

requires

that

“all

documents not in the English language which are presented or filed,
whether

as

evidence

or

otherwise,

must

be

accompanied

by

a

certified translation into English.” L. CV. R. 5(c). Consequently,
other judges in this District have routinely held that costs
related to translations are recoverable in IDEA cases. See Colon
Vazquez

v.

Puerto

Rico,

2015

WL

847291,

*2

(D.P.R.

2015)

(“[T]ranscription costs may be classified as reasonable out-ofpocket expenses normally billed to the client and, therefore, may
be included in costs awarded to a prevailing party under

[42

U.S.C. § 1988 and 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C).]”); Fortes-Cortes v.
Garcia-Padilla, 2016 WL 492766, *3-4 (D.P.R. 2016); Zayas v. Puerto
Rico, 451 F. Supp. 2d at 318. See also Torres-Serrant v. Dep't of
Educ. of Puerto Rico, 100 F. Supp. 3d 138, 144 (D.P.R. 2015)
(finding that requiring plaintiffs to pay for the translation costs
of the administrative record is “inconsistent with the IDEA's
language and objectives.”). In the case at bar, the translation
fees claimed by Plaintiffs are equally recoverable.

Civil No. 18-1286(RAM)

8
III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs

are

entitled

to

the

following

attorneys’ fees and costs:
Attorney’s fees totaling 268.69 hours
X $60.00/hour:
Attorney’s fees from May 2018 through
November 2018:
Interpreter fees for the September
13, 2018 hearing:
Translation fees:
Total fees and costs:

$16,121.40
$800.00
$750.00
$3,020.00
$20,691.40

The Court hereby GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' petition for
attorney’s fees, and costs at Docket No. 286, subject to the
adjustments discussed above. Defendants’ Opposition at Docket No.
303 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are awarded attorney’s fees and costs in
the total amount of $20,691.40.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan Puerto Rico, this 13th day of May 2021
S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH
United States District Judge