Elizabel Mendoza v. Commissioner Social Security

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL OPINION Coram: SMITH, ALDISERT and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 4. Judge: ALDISERT Authoring.

Case: 12-3565

Document: 003111383342

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/10/2013

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-3565
_____________
ELIZABEL MENDOZA,
Appellant
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 2-11-cv-03363)
District Judge: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler
__________
Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 9, 2013
Before: SMITH, ALDISERT and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed September 10, 2013)
__________
OPINION OF THE COURT
__________
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
Elizabel Mendoza appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey that denied in part her fee-award application, which was

Case: 12-3565

Document: 003111383342

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/10/2013

submitted pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. She
contends that the District Court abused its discretion when it reduced her requested fee
award after making a number of erroneous “categorical legal conclusions” that certain
fees incurred were not compensable. We will affirm in part and vacate in part the
judgment of the District Court, and remand with instructions to recalculate the fee award
consistent with our views set forth hereinafter.
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts and the
proceedings in this case, we will revisit them only briefly. Mendoza filed a complaint in
the District Court against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) after denial of her application for disability benefits. Following briefing by both
Mendoza and the Commissioner, the Commissioner contacted Mendoza on October 12,
2011 and offered a remand to the SSA for further proceedings. Mendoza raised issues
with the proposed remand instructions, and accordingly did not consent to remand at that
time. Ultimately, the District Court remanded the case to the SSA without any special
remand instructions.
This appeal concerns Mendoza’s application for fees under the EAJA, which she
submitted after the District Court remanded her case to the SSA. Mendoza’s counsel (the
“Clinic”) sought compensation for 45.75 hours of work, at a rate of $189.10 per hour, for
a total of $8651.33 in fees. The Commissioner challenged Mendoza’s fee application,
asserting that no fees should be awarded for any work performed after the October 12,
2011 remand offer. The District Court agreed, reducing Mendoza’s fee award to
$3829.28. This sum reflected the 20.25 hours spent by the Clinic as of October 12. This
award did not include any compensation for time spent preparing the application for fees

2

Case: 12-3565

Document: 003111383342

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/10/2013

or for responding to the Commissioner’s challenge to the fee application. Mendoza
timely appealed.
II.
The District Court had jurisdiction over Mendoza’s underlying claim pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and jurisdiction over her motion for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b);
we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the reasonableness of a fee
award for abuse of discretion, but we review de novo the legal standard applied by the
District Court in calculating the fee award. Jama v. Esmor Corr. Servs., Inc., 577 F.3d
169, 173 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Evans v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 273 F.3d 346, 358 (3d
Cir. 2001).
III.
Before the District Court, the Commissioner argued that Mendoza should not be
awarded any fees accrued after October 12, 2011, the date the Commissioner offered a
consent remand. The District Court agreed and therefore awarded Mendoza all claimed
fees incurred as of that date, but awarded no fees for work performed by the Clinic after
that date. We share the sentiments of the experienced District Court Judge that there may
have been “overlitigation” after the Commissioner’s offer of a consent remand. The
District Court acted well within its discretion in denying fees for legal work on the merits
of the case performed after that offer was made, particularly given the lack of success
achieved by Mendoza after that point. We agree with Mendoza, however, that she was
entitled to at least some fees for the time spent preparing the fee application itself,
because a fee application would have been necessary even had Mendoza agreed to the
Commissioner’s original remand offer. Lost amidst the District Court’s frustration with
the Clinic was careful consideration of the appropriateness of all claimed fees and

3

Case: 12-3565

Document: 003111383342

Page: 4

Date Filed: 09/10/2013

specific statements as to why certain fees would be awarded and others rejected. See
Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1187 (3d Cir. 1990) (“The district court should
explain why it concludes that hours expended on a task are excessive.”). Rather, the
approach taken by the District Court here was to categorically reject any and all fees
incurred after the consent remand offer, including those incurred in preparing the fee
application itself. The rationale for rejecting fees here based on “overlitigation” does not
apply with equal force to all of the hours spent on the fee application.
Accordingly, we will remand to the District Court to calculate reasonable
attorneys’ fees for work performed after the Commissioner’s remand offer on October
12, 2011.1
* * * * *
We have considered all of the arguments advanced by the parties and conclude
that no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of the District Court will be
affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the proceedings remanded in accordance with
the foregoing.

1

We wish to recognize and commend the Rutgers-Newark Urban Legal Clinic’s vigorous
representation of Ms. Mendoza. We note, however, that just as the District Court was
frustrated with what it deemed “overlitigation” of this case, we too believe that some
effort expended before our Court was ultimately redundant and unnecessary. We provide
this constructive criticism as part of the educational experience for the Clinic’s students,
and to encourage them to continue honing their craft.
4