Case: D.L. v. District of Columbia

1:05-cv-01437 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: July 21, 2005

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The named plaintiffs, former preschool-aged children with various disabilities, filed this lawsuit against the District of Columbia in July 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs alleged that the District had engaged in a pattern and practice of failing to provide special education and related services to them and other children, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and District of Columbia law. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, reimbursement for funds expended by them to obtain education services denied them by defendants' legal violations, and "compensatory education."

In August 2006, the Court (Judge Royce Lamberth) certified a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 237 F.R.D. 319. The plaintiff class is defined as: All children who are or may be eligible for special education and related services, who live in, or are wards of, the District of Columbia, and (1) whom defendants did not identify, locate, evaluate or offer special education and related services to when the child was between the ages of three and five years old, inclusive, or (2) whom defendants have not or will not identify, locate, evaluate or offer special education and related services to when the child is between the ages of three and five years old, inclusive.

Toward the end of discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In August 2010, Judge Lamberth ruled upon those motions and concluded, among other things, that defendants "denied a [free appropriate public education ("FAPE")] to a large number of children aged 3 to 5 years old, in violation of § 1412(a)(1)(A) of the IDEA." 730 F. Supp. 2d 84. However, this ruling applied only for the period 2007 and earlier, which were the only years for which data was available.

In 2011, and about a month before a scheduled bench trial that would determine defendants' remaining liability, defendants filed a Motion to Decertify the Class, arguing that plaintiffs lacked standing and could no longer satisfy the commonality or typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). In April 2011, before ruling on defendants' decertification motion, the Court held a two-day bench trial on the question of defendants' liability for the period 2008 to the present. At the end of the trial, Judge Lamberth ordered the parties to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, reserving decision for a later date.

While the decision was pending, the Supreme Court handed down Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), holding that class action status was inappropriate in a nationwide employment discrimination case brought by female employees. Judge Lamberth nonetheless denied class decertification in an opinion issued November 16, 2011, which also found the District liable for additional IDEA violations. The District appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed on class certification, and remanded for additional consideration. 713 F.3d 120. The Court of Appeals was concerned about a class made up of members with different types of claims.

Back in the trial court, Judge Lamberth denied the city's request to dismiss the case (on the grounds that the plaintiffs were now too old to have standing to sue). 302 F.R.D. 1. The Court held the plaintiffs' standing at the time they filed their complaint was sufficient, given the "inherently transitory" nature of special education litigation. Judge Lamberth certified four subclasses of plaintiffs in response to the D.C. Circuit's ruling: children who were not identified for services; children who weren't provided with a timely evaluation; children who didn't receive a timely decision about their eligibility; and children who weren't provided with a "smooth and effective" transition into preschool programs.

On October 14, 2014, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. On June 10, 2015, Judge Lamberth granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to all IDEA claims through April 6, 2011, but granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment for subclass 2 from April 6, 2011 to the present. 109 F. Supp. 3d 12. Judge Lamberth also granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment with respect to all Rehabilitation Act claims after March 22, 2010. As such, remaining for trial were the IDEA claims from April 6, 2011 to the present for subclasses 1, 3, and 4, and all Rehabilitation Act claims prior to March 22, 2010.

After the partial grant of summary judgment, a trial was set for November 13, 2015. After conclusion of the trial, Judge Lamberth found for plaintiffs on all remaining claims. 194 F. Supp. 3d 30 (2016). The judgement granted the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and attorney's fees. The relief stipulated that the defendants would reach specific numerical benchmarks for enrollment in special education services and come in full compliance with IDEA regulations. The injunction also established reporting requirements and was set to last until the defendant established it was in substantial compliance with the injunction's requirements.

On June 24, 2016, the defendants appealed the judgment, but on June 23, 2017, the court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment in all respects. 860 F.3d 713.

As part of their relief, the plaintiffs requested over $9 million dollars in attorney's fees. However, Judge Lamberth ordered that plaintiffs recalculate and subtract a 5% penalty. The plaintiffs then revised their figures to approximately $7 million which defendants were ordered to pay.

Still, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's order for calculating attorney's fees. On May 21, 2019, the court of appeals vacated and remanded the district court's order, requiring the district court to provide specific, countervailing evidence justifying its matrix for calculating fees. 924 F.3d 585.

On October 8, 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement as to attorney's fees and submitted it to the District Court for approval. On March 4, 2020, the district court ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' counsel an additional $1,084,000 in fees and expenses, bringing the total to $8,084,000.

	Document
16-07076	Docket [PACER] DL v. DC U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit	Aug. 10, 2017	Aug. 10, 2017 Docket
18-07004	Docket [PACER] D.L. v. DC U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit	July 8, 2019	July 8, 2019 Docket
1:05-cv-01437	Docket [PACER] DL v. District of Columbia	May 9, 2020	May 9, 2020 Docket
1 1:05-cv-01437	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief DL v. District of Columbia	July 21, 2005	July 21, 2005 Complaint
51 1:05-cv-01437	Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Documents by Plaintiffs DL v. District of Columbia	Aug. 23, 2006	Aug. 23, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
57 1:05-cv-01437	Memorandum Opinion [granting motion for class certification] DL v. District of Columbia	Aug. 25, 2006	Aug. 25, 2006 Order/Opinion
53 1:05-cv-01437	Memorandum Opinion [denying motion to dismiss] DL v. District of Columbia	Aug. 25, 2006	Aug. 25, 2006 Order/Opinion
55 1:05-cv-01437	Memorandum Opinion [denying motion to Dismiss Section 504 Claim and Defendant Superintendent] DL v. District of Columbia	Aug. 25, 2006	Aug. 25, 2006 Order/Opinion
107 1:05-cv-01437	Memorandum Opinion DL v. District of Columbia	June 27, 2008	June 27, 2008 Order/Opinion
139 1:05-cv-01437	Memorandum Opinion DL v. District of Columbia	March 11, 2009	March 11, 2009 Order/Opinion

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT against DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY (Filing fee $ 250) filed by OUL, ELIZABETH UMANA-LAZO, DARWIN LAZO, DC, DORIS COCKRELL, FD, FREDERICK DAVY, MONICA DAVY, TF, ANGELIQUE MOORE, DL, TAMEKA FORD, JB, LEAH BLAND.(jf, ) (Entered: 07/28/2005)	July 21, 2005	July 21, 2005 RECAP
	Summons Issued	July 21, 2005	July 21, 2005 PACER
2	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Move or Answer by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pace, Damon) (Entered: 08/03/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Aug. 3, 2005	Aug. 3, 2005 RECAP
3	ORDER granting 2 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to answer or otherwise respond; defendant's time to move or answer is extended to and including September 12, 2005. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on August 18, 2005. (lcrcl1, ) (Entered: 08/22/2005)	Aug. 22, 2005	Aug. 22, 2005 RECAP
	Set/Reset Deadlines	Aug. 22, 2005	Aug. 22, 2005 PACER
4	NOTICE of Appearance by Eden Ilene Miller on behalf of all defendants (Miller, Eden) (Entered: 08/25/2005)	Aug. 25, 2005	Aug. 25, 2005 RECAP
5	MOTION to Certify Class by DL. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order# 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9)(Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 09/01/2005) 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Class Certifi View on RECAP 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order View on RECAP 3 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 View on RECAP 4 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 View on RECAP 5 Exhibit Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 View on RECAP 6 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 View on RECAP 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 View on RECAP 8 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 6 View on RECAP 9 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 7 View on RECAP 10 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 8 View on RECAP 11 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Exhibit 9 View on RECAP	Sept. 1, 2005	Sept. 1, 2005 RECAP
6	NOTICE of Correction to Exhibits 1 and 3 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by DL re 5 MOTION to Certify Class (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 3)(Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 09/09/2005) 1 Exhibit 1 View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 3 View on RECAP	Sept. 9, 2005	Sept. 9, 2005 RECAP
7	ANSWER to Complaint by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY.(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 09/12/2005)	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 RECAP
8	ORDER requiring a Local Rule 16.3 Conference to be held within fifteen (15) days of this date between plaintiffs and defendants; and requiring that within ten (10) days thereafter, a report shall be filed with the Court, along with a proposed scheduling order. Signed by Royce C. Lamberth on 9/12/2005. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)	Sept. 12, 2005	Sept. 12, 2005 RECAP
9	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Certify Class by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 09/13/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Sept. 13, 2005	Sept. 13, 2005 RECAP
10	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 9 Defendants' Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plantiffs' Motion for Class Certification filed by DL. (Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 09/20/2005)	Sept. 20, 2005	Sept. 20, 2005 RECAP
11	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Miller, Eden) (Entered: 09/21/2005)	Sept. 21, 2005	Sept. 21, 2005 RECAP
12	ORDER granting Defendants? Motion 9 to Extend Time to Respond to Plaintiffs? Motion 5 to Certify Class. Defendants? time to respond to is extended to and including October 31, 2005. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 9/22/05. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)	Sept. 22, 2005	Sept. 22, 2005 RECAP
	Set/Reset Deadlines	Sept. 22, 2005	Sept. 22, 2005 PACER
13	MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs' Proposed Order# 2 Text of Proposed Order Defs' Response to Pls' Proposed Order)(Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 10/07/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order Plaintiffs' Proposed Order View on RECAP 2 Text of Proposed Order Defs' Response to Pls' Proposed Order View on RECAP	Oct. 7, 2005	Oct. 7, 2005 RECAP
14	ORDER setting schedule. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 10/7/05. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)	Oct. 11, 2005	Oct. 11, 2005 RECAP
	Set/Reset Deadlines	Oct. 13, 2005	Oct. 13, 2005 PACER
15	Joint MOTION for Protective Order by DL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order# 2 Exhibit Attachment A)(Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 10/28/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Protective Order View on RECAP 2 Exhibit Attachment A View on RECAP	Oct. 28, 2005	Oct. 28, 2005 RECAP
16	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 5 Class Certification filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 10/31/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Oct. 31, 2005	Oct. 31, 2005 RECAP
17	ORDER granting Joint Motion 15 for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 10/31/05. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)	Oct. 31, 2005	Oct. 31, 2005 RECAP
18	MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 11/10/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Nov. 10, 2005	Nov. 10, 2005 RECAP
19	MOTION to Dismiss Section 504 Claim by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 11/16/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Nov. 16, 2005	Nov. 16, 2005 RECAP
20	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Motions to Dismiss by DL. (Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 11/22/2005)	Nov. 22, 2005	Nov. 22, 2005 RECAP
21	ORDER granting 20 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Dismissal of the Complaint shall be due on December 10, 2005; Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claim of a Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act shall be due on December 16, 2005. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 11/22/05. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)	Nov. 22, 2005	Nov. 22, 2005 RECAP
	Set/Reset Deadlines	Nov. 22, 2005	Nov. 22, 2005 PACER
22	REPLY to opposition to motion re 5 Class Certification filed by DL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 10# 2 Exhibit 11# 3 Exhibit 12# 4 Exhibit 13# 5 Exhibit 14# 6 Exhibit 15# 9 Exhibit 16 )(Majeed, Sameena) Modified on 12/7/2005 (tg, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 12/7/2005 (tg, ). Version one of this document, with no redactions, has been filed UNDER SEAL. Modified on 1/27/2006 (tg, ). (Entered: 11/30/2005) 1 Exhibit 10 View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 11 View on RECAP 3 Exhibit 12 View on RECAP 4 Exhibit 13 View on RECAP 5 Exhibit 14 View on RECAP 6 Exhibit 15 View on RECAP 9 Exhibit exhibit 16 View on RECAP	Nov. 30, 2005	Nov. 30, 2005 RECAP
23	MOTION to Dismiss Defendant Superintendent Janey by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 12/08/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Dec. 8, 2005	Dec. 8, 2005 RECAP
24	Memorandum in opposition to re 18 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint filed by DL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 # 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 Exhibit 9# 10 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12)(Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 12/12/2005) 1 Exhibit 1 View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 2 View on RECAP 3 Exhibit 3 View on RECAP 4 Exhibit 4 View on RECAP 5 Restricted View on RECAP 6 Exhibit 6 View on RECAP 7 Exhibit 7 View on RECAP 8 Exhibit 8 View on RECAP 9 Exhibit 9 View on RECAP 10 Exhibit 10 View on RECAP 11 Exhibit 11 View on RECAP 12 Exhibit 12 View on RECAP	Dec. 12, 2005	Dec. 12, 2005 RECAP
25	Memorandum in opposition to re 19 Defendants' Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Claim of a Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act filed by DL. (Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 12/16/2005)	Dec. 16, 2005	Dec. 16, 2005 RECAP
26	Memorandum in opposition to the defendants motion re 18 to dismiss filed by OUL, ELIZABETH UMANA-LAZO, DARWIN LAZO, DC, DORIS COCKRELL, FD, FREDERICK DAVY, MONICA DAVY, TF, ANGELIQUE MOORE, DL, TAMEKA FORD, JB, LEAH BLAND;(FILED UNDER SEAL). (rje) Modified on 12/22/2005 (rje, ). (Entered: 12/22/2005)	Dec. 21, 2005	Dec. 21, 2005 PACER
27	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendants' Motion for Dismissal of Defendant District of Columbia Public Schools Superintendent Clifford Janey by DL. (Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 12/22/2005)	Dec. 22, 2005	Dec. 22, 2005 RECAP
28	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 25 Memorandum in Opposition, 24 Memorandum in Opposition, by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Miller, Eden) (Entered: 12/22/2005) 1 Text of Proposed Order View on RECAP	Dec. 22, 2005	Dec. 22, 2005 RECAP
29	REPLY to opposition to motion re 18 Version Two, Redacted, filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Blackman Order# 2 Exhibit 2, Griffin Declaration# 3 Exhibit 3, MOA# 4 Exhibit 4, Child Find Reference Guide# 5 Exhibit 5, Redacted (Johnson Declaration with Attachments))(Miller, Eden). Version One of this document, with no redactions, has been filed UNDER SEAL. Modified on 1/3/2006 (tg, ). (Entered: 01/03/2006) 1 Exhibit 1, Blackman Order View on RECAP 2 Exhibit 2, Griffin Declaration View on RECAP 3 Exhibit 3, MOA View on RECAP 4 Exhibit 4, Child Find Reference Guide View on RECAP 5 Exhibit 5, Redacted (Johnson Declaration with Attachments) View on RECAP	Jan. 3, 2006	Jan. 3, 2006 PACER
30	Memorandum in opposition to re 23 Defendants' Motion for Dismissal of Defendant District of Columbia Public Schools Superintendent Clifford Janey filed by DL. (Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 01/04/2006)	Jan. 4, 2006	Jan. 4, 2006 RECAP
31	REPLY to opposition to motion re 19 Section 504 claim filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Miller, Eden) (Entered: 01/05/2006)	Jan. 5, 2006	Jan. 5, 2006 RECAP
32	ORDER granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition, nunc pro tunc, granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply, nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 1/13/06. (lcrcl2, ) (Entered: 01/13/2006)	Jan. 13, 2006	Jan. 13, 2006 RECAP
33	REPLY to opposition to motion re 23 Dismissal of Defendant Superintendent Janey filed by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY. (Miller, Eden) (Entered: 01/17/2006)	Jan. 17, 2006	Jan. 17, 2006 RECAP
34	(STRICKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 8/25/2006).....NOTICE of Supplement to Defendants' 12/29/05, Reply by DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CLIFFORD B. JANEY re 29 Reply to opposition to 18 Motion, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2A, Declaration of Karen Griffin with Attachments A to D)(Miller, Eden) Modified on 1/18/2006 (tg, ). Modified on 8/28/2006 (rje, ). (Entered: 01/17/2006) 1 Exhibit 2A, Declaration of Karen Griffin with Attachments A to D View on RECAP	Jan. 17, 2006	Jan. 17, 2006 RECAP
35	MOTION to Strike 33 Reply to opposition to Motion, 34 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' Supplement to Their December 29, 2005 Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Dismissal of the Complaint for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies by OUL, ELIZABETH UMANA-LAZO, DARWIN LAZO, DC, DORIS COCKRELL, FD, FREDERICK DAVY, MONICA DAVY, TF, ANGELIQUE MOORE, DL, TAMEKA FORD, JB, LEAH BLAND. (Majeed, Sameena) (Entered: 01/20/2006)	Jan. 20, 2006	Jan. 20, 2006 RECAP

Case: D.L. v. District of Columbia

1:05-cv-01437 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details