LV v. New York City Department of Education

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• instructing that it is the fee applicant’s burden to “offer evidence to the Court in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits why its requested fee is appropriate”
• noting that billing entries such as “meeting w/co-counsel” and “conference w/ c- counsel” “omit information about the subject matter of the work and have justified reductions in hours in the past”
• reviewing rate for an attorney with 10 years of experience and finding $375 per hour “consistent with rates recently awarded to comparably experienced lawyers in this district”
• reducing partner’s claimed hours by 25% for claiming tasks that should be paralegal work, such as “work[ing] on database issues (alterations in original)
• reducing plaintiffs’ requested hours by an additional 5% because of excessive overstaffing and duplicative work when law firm used 29 attorneys and 19 non-legal staff in IDEA class action
• declining to reduce fee award based on defendants’ “object[ion] to unspecified ‘excessive billing’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).