Christie v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 26

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorney's Fees. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/15/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DIANA CHRISTIE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO:

8:12-cv-2603-T-33EAJ

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Diana Christie's Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees
Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (Doc.
# 25), filed on

September 10, 2014.

Plaintiff is seeking an

award of $1,487.84 in attorney's fees and is not seeking an
award of costs. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants
the motion.
A.

Eligibility for Award of Fees
The Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. §

2412, requires an award of attorney's fees and costs to any
party prevailing in litigation against the United States,
including proceedings for judicial review of Social Security
Administration Agency action, unless the Court determines that
the position of the United States was substantially justified
or that special circumstances exist and make an award unjust.

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Under

the

EAJA,

a

party

may

recover

an

award

of

attorney's fees against the government provided the party
meets five requirements: (1) the party seeking the award is
the prevailing party; (2) the application for such fees,
including an itemized justification for the amount sought, is
timely filed; (3) the claimant had a net worth of less than $2
million at the time the complaint was filed; (4) the position
of the government was not substantially justified; and (5)
there are no special circumstances which would make an award
unjust.
1.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1) and (2).
Prevailing Party

The Judgment in this case reversed the final decision of
the

Commissioner

and

remanded

the

case

for

further

consideration pursuant to sentence four of the Social Security
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. #

23).

"[A] party who wins a

sentence-four remand order is a prevailing party." Shalala v.
Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). Thus, Plaintiff qualifies
as the prevailing party in this action.
2.

Timely Application

The

EAJA

requires

a

prevailing

party

to

file

an

application for attorney's fees within thirty days of final
judgment in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).
-2-

This

requirement has been met here.

As explained by Plaintiff:

"This case was remanded upon order of this Court July 11,
2014.

Pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Appellate

Procedure

4(a)(1)(B), either party has 60 days to file an appeal.

The

judgment is final and non-appealable 61 days from July 11,
2014 or on September 10, 2014." (Doc. # 25 at 3).

Thus, the

application is timely filed.
3.

Claimant's Net Worth

Plaintiff's

counsel

represents

to

the

Court

that

Christie's net worth was less than $2 million at the time this
action was filed (Id. at 1), and the Commissioner does not
contest this assertion.

Accordingly, the Court finds this

requirement to be satisfied.
4.

Lack of Substantial Justification

The burden of proving substantial justification is on the
government. Stratton v. Bowen, 827 F.2d 1447, 1450 (11th Cir.
1987).

"Therefore, unless the Commissioner comes forth and

satisfies his burden, the government's position will be deemed
not substantially justified." Kimble ex rel. A.G.K. v. Astrue,
No. 6:11-cv-1063, 2012 WL 5877547, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 20,
2012).

In this case, the Commissioner does not dispute the

issue of substantial justification.
that

the

government's

position
-3-

Thus, the Court finds
was

not

substantially

justified.
5.

No Special Circumstances

Finally, the Commissioner has not made a claim that any
special circumstances exist that countenance against the
awarding of fees.

Accordingly, the Court finds no special

circumstances indicating an award of fees would be unjust.
B.

Amount of Fees
Having determined Plaintiff is eligible for an award of

fees under the EAJA, the Court now turns to the reasonableness
of the amount of fees sought.

Plaintiff requests an award of

$1,487.84 in attorney's fees, representing 1 hour at an hourly
rate of $183.11 in 2012, and 7 hours at the hourly rate of
$186.39 in 2013.
The amount of attorney's fees to be awarded "shall be
based upon the prevailing market rates for the kind and
quality of the service furnished," except that attorney's fees
shall not exceed $125 per hour unless the Court determines an
increase in the cost of living or a "special factor" justifies
a higher fee award.

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii).

The Court determines the requested hourly rates are
appropriate. Here, the proposed hourly rates are $183.11 in
2012, and $186.39 in 2013. The Commissioner does not oppose
Plaintiff's proposed hourly rates. Thus, the Court will adopt
-4-

Copies: All Counsel of Record

-6-