Siakala v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded $3,097.14 in attorney's fees. The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams on 5/9/2024. (CJF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TONIA SIAKALA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:22-cv-02464-NHA

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
I grant Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees, brought
pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), (Doc. 22), and award
Plaintiff $3,097.14 in attorney’s fees.
On March 4, 2024, the Court entered an order reversing and remanding
the Commissioner’s decision against Plaintiff, pursuant to sentence four of 42
U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc. 20. The Clerk then entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.
Doc. 21. Plaintiff now requests an award of $3,097.14 in attorney’s fees. Doc.
22.
For Plaintiff to be entitled to fees under the EAJA, five conditions must
be met: (1) Plaintiff must timely file an application for attorney’s fees;

(2) Plaintiff’s net worth must have been less than $2 million at the time the
Complaint was filed; (3) Plaintiff must be the prevailing party in a non-tort
suit involving the United States; (4) the position of the United States must not
have been substantially justified; and (5) no special circumstances would make
the award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S.
154, 158 (1990). Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating both that its
position was substantially justified and that special circumstances would make
the award unjust. United States v. Aisenberg, 358 F.3d 1327, 1339 n. 18 (11th
Cir. 2004).
Here, Plaintiff timely filed her application for EAJA fees on May 8, 2024,
which was within 30 days of the date the judgment became final. 1 Docs. 21, 22.
Plaintiff alleges she had a net worth of less than $2 million at the time his
Complaint was filed. Doc. 22 at ¶ 5. Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this
action. Doc. 21; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.
292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand
order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Further, Plaintiff
contends that Defendant’s position was not substantially justified, and that no
special circumstances would make an award of attorney’s fees and costs unjust

The judgment becomes final after the 60-day appeal window closes;
thus, the plaintiff in a social security case has 90 days after the judgment to
move for fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(G); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B).
1

2

in this instance. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Defendant does not challenge
these contentions. Indeed, Defendant does not oppose this motion. Doc. 22, p.
6.
The amount to be awarded in EAJA fees is decided under the “lodestar”
method by determining the number of hours reasonably expended on the
matter multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759,
773 (11th Cir. 1988), aff’d 496 U.S. 154 (1990). The resulting fee carries a
strong presumption that it is the reasonable fee. City of Burlington v. Dague,
505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992).
Plaintiff seeks an attorney’s fee award of $3,097.14. This amount is
based on Plaintiff’s attorneys expending 12.75 hours on the case at hourly rates
ranging from $234.95 (in 2022) to $244.62 (in 2023). Doc. 22, pp. 3, 5. I find the
fee request to be reasonable given the Defendant’s lack of objection, the hours
reasonably associated with Plaintiff’s attorney’s efforts to prosecute the case, 2
and the fair hourly rate. Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836
F.2d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988) (stating that “[t]he court, either trial or
appellate, is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own
knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may
form an independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as

Plaintiff’s attorney filed a Complaint (Doc. 1), reviewed the 1311-page
record (Doc. 12), and submitted an 10-page brief (Doc. 16).
2

3

to value.”) (quotation omitted).
If Plaintiff has no discernable federal debt, the government will accept
Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees (Doc. 22-2) and pay the fees and costs
directly to Plaintiff’s counsel. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 597 (2010)
(discussing the government’s practice to make direct payment of fees to
attorneys only in cases where “the plaintiff does not owe a debt to the
government and assigns the right to receive the fees to the attorney”).
Accordingly:
1.

Plaintiff’s unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the

EAJA (Doc. 22) is GRANTED.
2.

Plaintiff is awarded $3,097.14 in attorney’s fees.

3.

The Clerk is directed to enter an amended judgment accordingly.

ORDERED on May 9, 2024.

4