Appendix B: S.A. v. Tulare County Office of Education Emails are Not Educational Records if they are “Not Printed and Placed” in a Student’s File Rivera , 477 U.S. 561, 568 (1986) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). "This figure, commonly referred to as the `lodestar,' is presumed to be the reasonable fee." Id. To support the lodestar calculation, the prevailing plaintiff must submit documentary evidence detailing the number of hours spent and how it determined the hourly rate requested. Hensley , 461 U.S. at 433. After the Court calculates the lodestar, and in rare and exceptional cases, the Court may adjust the lodestar . . . based on factors not subsumed in the initial calculation of the lodestar." Van Gerwen , 214 F.3d at 1045; but see, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(C) (lodestar fee may not be increased for claims under the IDEA). Hourly Rate The Court begins its analysis by determining a reasonable hourly fee. Attorney's fees are to be calculated "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); see also, Blum v. Stenson , 12 *12 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits. Davis v. Mason County , 927 F.2d 1473, 1488 (9th Cir. 1991); see also, Barjon v. Dalton , 132 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1997) (applying the prevailing rate for the Sacramento community to an attorney whose practice was based in San Francisco). This Court sits in the Eastern District of California, Fresno division. Thus, the relevant community is Fresno, California. "[T]he established standard when determining a reasonable hourly rate is the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc. , 523 F.3d 973, 979 (9th Cir. 2008). *9 To set forth and substantiate the hourly rates charged, Student submits declarations of Mr. Adams, Heather S. Zakson ("Ms. Zakson"), Shannyn C. Riba ("Ms. Riba"), and Elizabeth F. Eubanks ("Ms. Eubanks"). Mr. Adams, an attorney with eight years of experience who has prosecuted over 100 compliance complaints, charged an hourly rate of $225. Ms. Leyton, an attorney with one-year of legal experience, and the person who performed the bulk of the work in this matter, charged an hourly rate of $175. Ms. Zakson, an attorney with six years of experience in education law, charges $300 per hour. Ms. Riba and Ms. Eubanks, both attorneys with one year of experience, charge $275 per hour. Each attorney submits that their hourly rates are either at or below the prevailing rate for the legal community. In opposition, TCOE submits a declaration by Nicole Misner, who declares that the prevailing hourly rate for an eight-year attorney in special education litigation is $250. Based on the aforementioned declarations and considering that Mr. Adams charged below the prevailing community rate as established by TCOE, this Court finds that the hourly rates of $225 for Mr. Adams and $175 for Ms. Leyton are reasonable. Hours Expended Next, the Court considers the reasonableness of the hours expended. "In determining the appropriate lodestar amount, the district court may exclude from the fee request any hours that are `excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'" Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 480 F.3d 942,
BP 2001 – Confidentiality and Student Records
Page 28
Desert Mountain Charter Special Education Local Plan Area (DMCS) (rev. 11/16)
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online