however, assert that the plaintiff is not entitled to Laffey rates, adjusted or otherwise, because IDEA proceedings are “not the type of complex federal litigation for which Laffey rates were adopted.” Defs.’ Opp’n at 9. Instead, the defendants insist, the DCPS Guidelines contain the appropriate fee schedule that should be applied (“DCPS fee schedule”). Id. at 10; Defs.’ Opp’n, Ex. B at 3. The plaintiff counters that the DCPS fee schedule is “grossly antiquated,” and that it does not allow for any upward adjustment for standard of living increases or inflation. Pl.’s Mot. at 5. This court has previously held that attorney’s fees in IDEA actions are presumptively reasonable if they conform to the Laffey Matrix. See Jackson v. District of Columbia, 696 F.Supp.2d 97, 102 (D.D.C.2010) (<HOLDING>). Other members of this court have reached
holding that idea administrative proceedings which require expert testimony regarding whether a student has been denied a fape are sufficiently complex to warrant application of the laffey matrix holding that the laffey matrix is the proper formula to determine the prevailing market rate for legal services rendered in connection with idea administrative proceedings holding that a billing rate in accordance with the laffey matrix was reasonable holding that plaintiffs may provide evidence to supplement the laffey matrix including fees awarded to attorneys with similar qualifications in comparable cases holding that with respect to the eaja the local or national market rate for legal services cannot be a special factor used to increase the rate beyond the statutory rate