Rainey v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 31

ORDER granting 27 Plaintiff's Motion for EAJA Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 11/2/2018. (AR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
DOROTHY ELIZABETH RAINEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:17-cv-541-Oc-PRL

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
Defendant.

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees. (Doc. 27). Pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (AEAJA@), 28 U.S.C. '2412(d), Plaintiff requests an award of
fees in the amount of $3,187.83.
Under the EAJA, a claimant is eligible for an attorney fee award where: (1) the claimant is
a prevailing party in a non-tort suit involving the United States; (2) the Government’s position was
not substantially justified; (3) the claimant filed a timely application for attorney’s fees; (4) the
claimant had a net worth of less than $2 million at the time the complaint was filed; and (5) there
are no special circumstances which would make the award of fees unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
The record establishes that these requirements have been met, and the Commissioner does not
dispute Plaintiff’s claim that she qualifies for an award of fees.
However, the Commissioner argues that Plaintiff’s claim includes time spent on uncompensable clerical or administrative tasks. See e.g., Norman v. Housing Authority of City of
Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1306 (11th Cir. 1988) (“[a] fee applicant is not entitled to

compensation at an attorney’s rate simply because an attorney undertook tasks which were
mundane, clerical, or which did not require the full exercise of an attorney’s education and
judgment.”). Specifically, the Commissioner contests the following entries: 11/8/17 Complaint,
Civ. Cov. Sheet, Summons (0.7); 11/22 Notice of Pendency (0.1); 11/17 Reviewed Order granting
forma pauperis motion (0.1); 1/30/18 Reviewed Answer (0.1); 1/31 Reviewed Schd. Order (0.1);
and 8/16 Reviewed Order and Judgment (0.1).
While not complex work, these tasks are attorney’s work. Indeed, an attorney is expected
to read the Court’s orders, as well as the pleadings and papers filed by the opposing party. See
Kropp v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 3:13-cv-158-JBT, Doc. 29, p. 6-7 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30,
2013) (finding compensable time for “not especially rigorous tasks” including ensuring proper
service, and reading adversary’s filings and Court’s orders); Vargas v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case
No. 6:13-cv-1683,-Orl-41TBS, Doc. 30, p. 4 (M.D. Fla. March 11, 2015) (finding compensable
“less intellectually demanding work” that attorneys are still expected to do, including reviewing
the return of service to insure proper service and reviewing the notice of pendency of related cases
before submitting it to the court). And, an attorney has an obligation to review every document
filed with the Court under his or her name. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In reviewing the above entries,
the Court findings that the time spent by Plaintiff’s counsel to accomplish these tasks was
reasonable.
Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C.
'2412(d)), Plaintiff=s motion for attorney=s fees (Doc. 27) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is
awarded attorney=s fees in the amount of $3,187.83. Based on Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees
to her counsel (Doc. 27-1), payment is authorized to Plaintiff=s counsel if the Commissioner
determines Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on November 2, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-