Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

O. et al v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago

May 6, 2011

O. ET AL
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO



Name of Assigned Judge Amy J. St. Eve Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court grants in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Rule 54.3 (Plaintiffs' "fees-on-fees" motion) [34]. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover a total of $16,960.00 in attorneys' fees and costs. The District shall make payment consistent with this order by no later than 7/5/11.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Rule 54.3. In their motion, Plaintiffs seek "fees on fees" -- the fees they incurred in their successful effort to recover attorneys' fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiffs' motion in part and awards Plaintiffs $16,960.00 in fees and costs.

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2010, Plaintiffs Brianna O., a minor, and Anne O., individually and as parent and next friend of Brianna ("Plaintiffs"), filed the present lawsuit against Defendant Board of Education of the City of Chicago, District 299 (the "District") for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B). The parties filed lengthy cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 8, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part each party's motion for summary judgment. The Court found that Plaintiffs had sufficiently established their status as the prevailing party under the IDEA. The Court also found, however, that the District's Offer of Settlement, which it presented to Plaintiffs on July 23, 2009, provided more favorable relief than the Illinois State Board of Education ("ISBE") hearing officer's Order. That finding could have provided a victory for the District, but it did not. The Court ultimately determined that because of, inter alia, the District's repeated failures to respond to Plaintiffs' communications -- as the ISBE hearing officer described in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the District "simply ignored" Plaintiffs' overtures -- Plaintiffs were substantially justified in rejecting the District's Offer of Settlement and were thus not barred from seeking reasonable attorney's fees for the entirety of the dispute's duration. After concluding that Plaintiffs' degree of success at their due process hearing warranted a 40% reduction in their requested attorney's fees, the Court awarded Plaintiffs $31,491.60 in attorney's fees and costs, plus prejudgment interest at 3.25%.*fn1

Email exchanges submitted to the Court as an exhibit to Plaintiffs' pending motion indicate that on November 17, 2010, Plaintiffs' counsel sent the District an itemized list of the fees and costs they incurred in litigating the fee claim. The sum total of those services was $18,009.50. Plaintiffs offered to reduce that amount to $15,000.00, reflecting a 16% reduction. The District countered with a $7,000.00 offer, which Plaintiffs promptly rejected. Acknowledging that they were likely at an impasse, Plaintiffs' counsel sent the District a draft joint statement in accordance with Local Rule 54.3(e), requesting that the District complete its portion and return the draft so that Plaintiffs could file a motion for fees and costs. One month later, having received no response, Plaintiffs' counsel again asked the District to complete its portion of the joint statement so that Plaintiffs could file their motion for fees and costs. Although the District responded to that email, three weeks passed and the District did not provide Plaintiffs with their draft. On January 31, 2011, Plaintiffs' counsel notified the District that they intended to file the motion by no later than February 2, 2011,*fn2 and would leave the District's sections of the joint statement blank if the District did not respond. It did not.

On February 2, 2011, Plaintiffs submitted the pending "fees-on-fees" motion for attorney's fees and costs incurred in litigating the Section 1415(i)(3)(B) claim to the District. Plaintiffs seek $21,198.75 in attorney's fees and costs. In the District's response, it urges the Court to award Plaintiffs no more than $6,679.64.

LEGAL STANDARD

In general, federal courts apply the same principles applicable to attorney's fees awards for civil rights cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to IDEA cases. See Jodlowski v. Valley View Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 365-U, 109 F.3d 1250, 1253 n.2 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 n.7, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). When determining whether attorney's fees are reasonable, the Court considers the lodestar figure, namely, "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Enoch v. Tienor, 570 F.3d 821, 823 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). The "lodestar figure is the 'starting point' and "[o]nce that figure is determined, the court may consider other factors set out in Hensley," which "include whether the documentation of the hours is adequate and whether 'billing judgment' was used." Enoch, 570 F.3d at 823-34. Courts are mindful that a "request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation." Sottoriva v. Claps, 617 F.3d 971, 975 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hensley, 461 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.