UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CHRISTOPHER SWANSON and JEFF
PRINTZ,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 15-1635 (RDM)
v.
MARINA MARTINS,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. 17. The
Court previously granted Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment and awarded monetary
damages, but deferred ruling on their request for attorneys’ fees in light of the D.C. Circuit’s
opinion in Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015), and the need for Plaintiffs
to further support the billing rates contained in their request. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their
request for $75 per hour for administrative staff time, Dkt. 17 at 1, and have provided additional
evidence of the rates prevailing in the community for similar legal services. The Court is thus
now in a position to GRANT in part and DENY in part Plaintiffs’ petition for attorneys’ fees.
In its earlier opinion, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs had justified the number of hours
expended in litigating this case and had delegated tasks to the more junior attorney or paralegal
where appropriate. Swanson v. Martins, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2017 WL 123722, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan.
11, 2017). Plaintiffs’ counsel also attested that the fees charged in this case were “customary for
similar cases handled by [his] firm.” Dkt. 10-5 at 2 (Valkenet Decl. ¶ 12). And, significantly,
Plaintiffs sought fees below the rates set out in the Laffey Matrix, which is “the most commonly
used schedule of prevailing rates for lawyers who practice complex federal litigation.” Swanson,
2017 WL 123722, at *3 (citation and alterations omitted). Nevertheless, in light of the D.C.
Circuit’s guidance in Eley that a district court should not award attorneys’ fees based on only the
Laffey Matrix, the “lawyers’ verified time sheets,” and the “lawyer’s verified statement that he
charged his paying clients the rates in the . . . Laffey Matrix,” the Court deferred decision on
Plaintiffs’ fee petition to allow for the submission of additional evidence that the “requested rates
[we]re in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services.” Swanson, 2017 WL
123722, at *3 (quoting Eley, 793 F.3d at 104) (alterations in original).
Plaintiffs have now submitted additional evidence regarding the rates prevailing in the
legal community for similar services by lawyers of “reasonably comparable skill, experience,
and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). In particular, they point to
Judge Lamberth’s award of fees in Beck v. Test Masters Educational Services, Inc., 73 F. Supp.
3d 12 (D.D.C. 2014). There, lead counsel for the plaintiffs had nineteen years of experience at
the time of the fee petition and sought compensation based on hourly rates that ranged from $295
to $485. Beck, No. 04-cv-1391, Dkt. 203-1 at 1, 12 (D.D.C. Jan 31, 2014) (Zavareei Decl. ¶¶ 3,
34). A more junior lawyer in that matter, who was four to five years out of law school, billed her
time at $250 per hour. Id. at 16 (Zavareei Decl. ¶ 44). The highest rate charged by a paralegal in
that case was $85 per hour, substantially below the then-applicable Laffey rate of $145 per hour.
Id. at 17 (Zavareei Decl. ¶ 46).
Judge Lamberth granted the fee petition, concluding that “the rates [requested] are
reasonable and customary for the D.C. community” and noting “[a]lmost all of the rates
requested by plaintiffs are below the accepted Laffey rate.” Beck, 73 F. Supp. 3d at 18 & n.5.
This evidence provides the necessary support for the proposition that Plaintiffs’ attorneys, who
2
have similar levels of experience to the attorneys in Beck and charged similar fees, see Swanson,
2017 WL 123722, at *3, seek fees in line with those prevailing in the community for similar
legal services. The fee award that Judge Lamberth sustained in Beck, however, does not support
a rate of $150 per hour for law clerk and paralegal time, which Plaintiffs seek in this case. Dkt.
10-5 at 2 (Valkenet Decl. ¶ 9). Because Plaintiffs do not offer any alternative evidence of the
prevailing rate for comparable paralegal/law clerk services, the Court will reduce the rate sought
for paralegal/law clerk time to $85 per hour, in line with Beck. Plaintiffs claim 17.6 hours of law
clerk time, leading to a total award of $1,496 for that time.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ supplemental motion for attorneys’ fees, Dkt. 17, is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs are hereby awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$13,466, which represents the initial total claimed of $14,805, less 2.6 hours of administrative
time at $75 per hour and a $65 per hour reduction in law clerk time for 17.6 hours.
SO ORDERED
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: April 7, 2017
3