Hernandez-Melendez et al v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al, No. 3:2014cv01493 - Document 15 (D.P.R. 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Complaint, filed by R.R.H., Rafael Roman-Jimenez, Angeles Hernandez-Melendez. Plaintiffs are awarded $4,374.00 in attorneys' fees and $522.05 in costs, totaling $4,896.05, plus interest. Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $4,896.05, plus any interest accrued. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 08/29/2014.(mrj)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 4 ANGELES HERNANDEZ-MELENDEZ, et al., Civil No. 3:14-cv-01493 (JAF) Plaintiffs, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et al., Defendants. 5 6 OPINION AND ORDER 7 This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs request for attorney s fees as the 8 prevailing party in the litigation of an administrative proceeding under the Individuals 9 with Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA ), 20 U.S.C. §1400-85. (Docket No. 1). 10 Defendants object to the reasonableness of the requested fees. (Docket No. 8). At the 11 request of the court, Plaintiffs updated their fee request to include all fees and costs 12 incurred to date. (Docket No. 13.) 13 In the verified complaint, Plaintiffs request an award of the attorney s fees and 14 costs incurred in administrative proceeding number 2013-069-046, plus additional fees 15 and costs incurred in the present litigation. (Docket No. 1 at 5.) Plaintiffs seek fees 16 computed at an hourly rate of $135 per hour for 27 hours ($3,645) through June 16, 2014, 17 plus an additional $850.50 incurred since the filing of the verified complaint (Docket 18 No. 13-1), plus $522.05 in costs, for a total request of $5,017.55 19 Defendants object to the request arguing that Plaintiffs are entitled to only 20 $2,968.25 of their initial fee request. Plaintiffs filed the bill of costs and updated fee Civil No. 3:14-cv-01493 (JAF) -2- 1 request on August 13, 2014. (Docket Nos. 11 and 13.) As of the date of this Order, 2 Defendants did not reply. 3 requested amount and the amount Defendants deem reasonable is less than $700. The court notes that the difference between the initial 4 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B) provides that [i]n any action or proceeding brought 5 under [section 1415 of the IDEA], the court, in its discretion, may award reasonable 6 attorneys fees as part of the costs . . . to a prevailing party who is the parent of a child 7 with a disability. Under the IDEA, . . . the aggrieved child s parents . . . . may seek 8 attorneys fees as prevailing parties through its fee-shifting provision. Smith v. 9 Fitchburg Pub. Sch., 401 F.3d 16, 18 n.1 (1st Cir. 2005). The fees awarded shall be 10 based on rates prevailing in the community in which the action or proceeding arose for 11 the kind and quality of services furnished. No bonus or multiplier may be used in 12 calculating the fees awarded under this subsection. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C). The First 13 Circuit has explained that the IDEA s fee-shifting provision should be interpreted in a 14 manner consistent with the fee-shifting statute of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 15 § 1988(b), and other similar fee-shifting statutes. Doe v. Boston 2 Pub. Sch., 358 F.3d 20, 16 26 (1st Cir. 2004). 17 Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are the parents of a child with a disability 18 who was the prevailing party in the underlying administrative proceeding. There is no 19 dispute that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney s fees and costs. Fees are 20 presumptively reasonable where the requesting party has multiplied a reasonable hourly 21 rate by the number of hours reasonably spent on litigation. See Gay Officers Action 22 League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 293 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at Civil No. 3:14-cv-01493 (JAF) -3- 1 433). The First Circuit has adopted the lodestar approach, in which the trial judge 2 must determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by 3 a reasonable hourly rate. Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). In the lodestar method, 4 the judge calculates the time counsel spent on the case, subtracts duplicative, 5 unproductive, or excessive hours, and then applies prevailing rates in the community 6 (taking into account the qualifications, experience, and specialized competence of the 7 attorneys involved). Id. (citing Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 937 (1st Cir. 1992)). 8 The logged hours are reasonably spent on litigation unless duplicative, 9 unproductive, or excessive. Id. In addition, after calculation of the initial amount of the 10 award, attorney s fees may be reduced because of (1) the overstaffing of a case, (2) the 11 excessiveness of the hours expended on the legal research or the discovery proceedings, 12 (3) the redundancy of the work exercised, or (4) the time spent on needless or unessential 13 matters. Serrano v. Ritz-Carlton San Juan Hotel Spa & Casino, 808 F. Supp. 2d 393, 14 398 (D.P.R. 2011) (quoting Ramos v. Davis & Geck, Inc., 968 F. Supp. 765, 775 (D.P.R. 15 1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 16 Defendants do not challenge the reasonableness of counsel for Plaintiffs hourly Based on Attorney Francisco J. Vizcarrondo-Torres expertise and 17 rate of $135. 18 experience, the rate of $135.00 per hour is found to be appropriate, if not at the lower end 19 for attorneys in the Puerto Rico community. See Zayas v. Puerto Rico, 451 F. Supp. 2d 20 310, 316 (D.P.R. 2006) (Noting, eight years earlier, that the range for Puerto Rico 21 attorneys practicing in this type of litigation was from $200 to $110 per hour). Civil No. 3:14-cv-01493 (JAF) -4- 1 Defendants ask this court to subtract time they have deemed clerical, excessive or 2 duplicative, unproductive, or otherwise unnecessary. (Docket No. 8.) With respect to 3 specific time entries, Defendants take issue with Plaintiffs counsel using 3.4 hours 4 preparing for the administrative hearing, 1.8 hours meeting with the client in preparation 5 for the administrative hearing, and 9.1 hours reviewing the evidence and drafting the 6 administrative complaint and other documents. Defendants ask the court to apply a 40% 7 reduction in the amount of time spent on the case, arguing that the time spent reviewing 8 and drafting documents and planning and preparing for the administrative hearing was 9 excessive. The court disagrees. It is noted that the most common reason for reducing the 10 number of hours in a fee request is to account for limited success in the underlying 11 matter. That reduction is not applicable in this case. The court finds that counsel for 12 Plaintiffs time entries for reviewing and drafting documents and preparing for the 13 administrative hearing are not excessive. 14 Defendants also ask the court to reduce the attorneys fees award for various 15 communications between counsel and Plaintiffs claiming the communications are 16 unnecessary, redundant, unproductive, excessive, and vague. (Docket No. 8 at 4). The 17 court disagrees. Over the course of nine months, the communications totaled around 6 18 hours. In a case such as this, where the parents bring the litigation on a child s behalf, one 19 expects the parents to have questions, require clarification, and provide information 20 piecemeal. The total communications amount to an average of just 40 minutes per month. 21 The court does not find this excessive. Civil No. 3:14-cv-01493 (JAF) -5- 1 Upon review of the specific entries, the court further finds that they are not vague, 2 redundant, unnecessary, or unproductive. Each of counsel for Plaintiffs time entries 3 provides a brief description of the purpose of the communication while not disclosing the 4 specifics of the attorney-client communication, e.g., clarifying client s multiple case 5 related inquiries and clarifying multiple client inquiries concerning document contents 6 and ongoing meeting with DOE s personnel. Although response to client s e-mail 7 may at first seem vague, when read in connection with the preceding entry from the same 8 day review e-mail communication ¦ enclosing comments to final resolution, the 9 purpose of the e-mail response becomes clear. Accordingly, Defendants objection to 10 counsel for Plaintiffs time entries as unnecessary, redundant, unproductive, excessive, 11 and vague is not well-taken. 12 Finally, the court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs have included time entries 13 for clerical tasks. It is well established that clerical or secretarial tasks ought not to be 14 billed at lawyers rates, even if a lawyer performs them. Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 15 934, 940 (1st Cir. 1992). Certain entries request attorneys fees for drafting e-mail 16 communications for the purpose of acknowledging receipt of documents sent by 17 Plaintiffs to counsel. For example, on October 29, 2013, counsel s entry describes the 18 task of draft[ing] e-mail communication to Mrs. Angeles Hernandez re: acknowledging 19 receipt of supplemental documents. Other entries document counsel s tasks of emailing 20 digital copies of documents to Plaintiffs. In addition to the October 29, 2013, entry 21 referenced above, Defendants identify five instances where Plaintiffs counsel billed for 22 tasks that are clerical in nature. The court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs Civil No. 3:14-cv-01493 (JAF) -6- 1 improperly seek fees for these time entries. Accordingly, the court deducts $121.50 for 2 these clerical tasks. 3 Having reviewed the briefs and accompanying documentation, the court finds 4 Plaintiffs fee request is reasonable and, hereby, GRANTS Plaintiffs request for 5 attorneys fees as the prevailing party in the underlying administrative proceeding on 6 behalf of their minor child. Plaintiffs are awarded $4,374.00 in attorneys fees and 7 $522.05 in costs, totaling $4,896.05, plus interest. Defendants are jointly and severally 8 liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $4,896.05, plus any interest accrued. 9 Judgment shall be entered accordingly. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 29th day of August, 2014. 12 13 14 S/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.