McKenzie v. Kennickell

14 Citing cases

  1. Miller v. Holzmann

    575 F. Supp. 2d 2 (D.D.C. 2008)   Cited 48 times
    Holding rates charged by Wilmer Hale to be reasonable despite 38 percent variance with Laffey Matrix

    Second, "[t]he hours reasonably expended are not necessarily equal to the hours actually expended." McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 446 (D.D.C. 1986) (Parker, J.). "Hours that are not properly billed to one's client also are not properly billed to one's adversary pursuant to statutory authority."

  2. Mardirossian v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America

    457 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (C.D. Cal. 2006)   Cited 19 times
    Holding that a determination by the court that defendant plan administrator violated ERISA, even if a remand is the only relief afforded, makes a plaintiff a prevailing party

    However, duplication must typically be warranted by the complexity of the matter or by each attorney's distinct contributions to the case. See Kim, 871 F.2d at 1435 n. 9 ("Here, the participation of more than one attorney constituted a reasonable necessity, given the complexity of legal issues and the breadth of factual evidence involved in this case"); Johnson v. University College, 706 F.2d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 1983) ("An award for time spent by two or more attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each lawyer to the case and the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation"); McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986) (allowing compensation for two attorneys where multiple lawyers appeared at major oral arguments or hearings). Mardirossian does not assert that the mediation was particularly complex or that his attorneys handled distinct aspects of the mediation.

  3. McKenzie v. Kennickell

    669 F. Supp. 529 (D.D.C. 1987)   Cited 11 times
    Denying the government's request for a sixty-day stay in execution of judgment where the government had not "offered any good reason why it should be granted greater protections than those provided under the federal rules. . . ."

    On September 12, 1986 counsel were awarded an interim payment covering legal services provided and expenses advanced on behalf of plaintiffs for an earlier period of the litigation, from 1973-1980. McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437 (D.D.C. 1986). Now that the litigation has been finally resolved on the merits, they seek compensation for legal services rendered and expenses incurred since 1981.

  4. McKenzie v. Kennickell

    875 F.2d 330 (D.C. Cir. 1989)   Cited 33 times
    Upholding a 50 percent enhancement, which plaintiff had not appealed, as permissible but describing it as "below the Title VII contingency enhancements typically awarded in this circuit"

    Applicants were granted an interim award covering the period from the outset of the case until January 30, 1981, the date of the final relief order. See McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 441 (D.D.C. 1986). After some considerable delay, the government eventually complied with the district court's order, see McKenzie v. Kennickell, 669 F.Supp. 529, 530-31, 535 (D.D.C. 1987).

  5. Trs. of the IAM Nat'l Pension Fund v. M&K Emp. Sols.

    1:20-CV-433-RCL (D.D.C. Sep. 30, 2024)

    As a general matter, internal strategy conferences are compensable, and each participant's time may be counted toward the fee application. See McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986) (β€œ[C]onferences between attorneys to discuss strategy . . . are an essential part of effective litigation . . . and there is no reason or authority for allowing only one lawyer to charge for time that more than one lawyer justifiably spent.

  6. Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

    No. CV-17-01083-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2020)

    This amount is slightly more than 23% of the total fees requested. Although conferences between attorneys to discuss and strategize are an important aspect of effective litigation, see McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986), the party seeking fees must establish that the communications were efficient and essential. Fresh Packing Corp. v. Guicho, 2016 WL 1718286, at *7 (N.D. Cal. 2016); see also Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming reduction in fees for intra-office conferences when fee claimant failed to provide a "persuasive justification" for the conferences). The Court first notes that this FOIA matter was not particularly complex; although there was an initial motion to stay, this matter was resolved with a production schedule.

  7. Cox v. Dist. of Columbia

    264 F. Supp. 3d 131 (D.D.C. 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that underlying IDEA administrative proceedings were not sufficiently complex to warrant an award of fees at the attorney's full Laffey rate, and awarding fees at 75% of the attorney's Laffey rate

    An attorney "is entitled to all expenses associated with the litigation that [she] would normally expect to pass on to fee paying clients," so long as the costs are reasonable. Holbrook v. District of Columbia , 305 F.Supp.2d 41, 46 (D.D.C. 2004) (quoting McKenzie v. Kennickell , 645 F.Supp. 437, 452 (D.D.C. 1986) ). Thus, "[a]n award of costs for copying, faxing, and postage ... [is] customarily included in fees awards."

  8. Daniels v. District of Columbia

    Civil Action No. 14-665 DAR (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2017)   Cited 5 times

    The undersigned finds that the expenses for copying and mailing as well as the fees for the service of process and filing are reasonable and normally included as part of the award to a prevailing party in this District. See Holbrook v. District of Columbia, 305 F. Supp. 2d 41, 46 (D.D.C. 2004) ("An attorney, however, is entitled to 'all expenses associated with the litigation that [she] would normally expect to pass on to fee paying clients,' provided such costs are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount.") (citing McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 452 (D.D.C. 1986)). Calculation of the Total Fees and Costs

  9. Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:02-CV-0134 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 28, 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Awarding $170 per hour for a paralegal

    It is more than reasonable for two attorneys to prepare for oral argument even if only one of them is ultimately making the argument. McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986) ("[T]here is no reason or authority for allowing only one lawyer to charge for time that more than one lawyer justifiably spent."); Williamsburg Fair Hous. Comm. v. Ross-Rodney Hous. Corp., 599 F. Supp. 509, 518 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("[D]ivision of responsibility may make it necessary for more than one attorney to attend activities such as depositions and hearings."). Bridgeport's objection will be overruled.

  10. McAllister v. Dist. of Columbia

    21 F. Supp. 3d 94 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 42 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding lack of complexity in cases where, inter alia , school district either defaulted or failed to contest issues, no administrative hearing was conducted due to settlement, or hearing had limited number of witnesses

    An attorney β€œis entitled to all expenses associated with the litigation that [she] would normally expect to pass on to fee paying clients,” so long as the costs are reasonable and reasonably incurred. SeeHolbrook v. Dist. of Columbia, 305 F.Supp.2d 41, 46 (D.D.C.2004) (quoting McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 452 (D.D.C.1986). Costs for faxing are customarily included in prevailing party fee awards in IDEA litigation, seeMcClam v. Dist. of Columbia, 808 F.Supp.2d 184, 190–91 (D.D.C.2011), but costs have often been reimbursed at the reduced rate of $0.15 per page.