GRAY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVT., 07-7061 (D.C. Cir. 8-2-2007)
Barbara Gray, as next friend of minor child, D.E., et al., Appellants v.District of Columbia Government, Appellee.
No. 07-7061.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: August 2, 2007.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] BEFORE: Randolph, Garland, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response thereto, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog,Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellants challenge the validity of section 327 of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub L. No.108-335, 118 Stat. 1322, 1344 (2004), capping at $4000 the amount of attorneys' fees that the District of Columbia is authorized to pay. Appellants urge the court to reverse a consistent body of case law striking down challenges to the fee cap, because many changes have occurred with respect to litigation under the IDEA and because, they contend, Congress's intent in imposing the cap has not been realized. Those changes and that contention do not alter the constitutionality of the fee cap. The district court properly dismissed their action for failure to state a claim.See Calloway v. D.C., 216 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Whately v. D.C.,447 F.3d 814, 820 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Kaseman v. D.C.,444 F.3d 637, 642 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.Page 1