Joiner v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER granting 20 Motion for Attorney Fees. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED, and Defendant is hereby ordered to pay attorneys fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $5,337.50 (30.50 hours at $175.00 per hour). Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TYRA JOINER
O/B/O R.J.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER: 14-1315

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

SECTION: “E”(5)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA).1 In the motion, Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of $5,337.50
(30.50 hours at $175.00 per hour).2 The Defendant has filed a limited response to
Plaintiff’s motion,3 noting simply that an award of attorney’s fees under the EAJA must
be made payable to Plaintiff, not Plaintiff’s attorney.4 The Defendant otherwise does not
oppose the motion or the amount of attorney’s fees sought by Plaintiff under the EAJA.5
Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees
is GRANTED.
I.

The EAJA and Number of Hours Claimed
The EAJA provides that a court shall award attorney’s fees and costs to a

prevailing party in a civil action brought against the United States unless the court finds
that the position of the government was substantially justified or that special
circumstances make an award unjust.6

A party who obtains a remand of a social

security appeal pursuant to the fourth sentence of § 405(g)—such as the Plaintiff in this
R. Doc. 20.
R. Doc. 20-1 at 4.
3 R. Doc. 21.
4 R. Doc. 21 at 1–2.
5 See R. Doc. 21.
6 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
1

2

1

case—qualifies as a prevailing party for purposes of fees under the EAJA.7 The prevailing
party is entitled to fees unless the government meets its burden of showing that its
position was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.8
In this case, the Defendant does not oppose the motion,9 and therefore does not contest
that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and entitled to an award of EAJA fees. Furthermore,
the Court has reviewed the itemization of charges submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, and
has determined that the amount of time spent on the services performed is reasonable.10
II.

Hourly Rate
In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to recover attorney’s fees at an hourly rate of

$175.00.11 For the following reasons, the Court finds that such an hourly rate under the
EAJA is appropriate in this district. The EAJA provides in relevant part that the amount
of fees awarded:
shall be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the
services furnished, except that . . . attorney fees shall not be awarded in
excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the
cost of living or a special factor . . . justifies a higher fee.12
The EAJA “vests the district courts with discretion to arrive at a reasonable rate
for attorneys’ fees based on cost-of-living adjustments and other factors.”13 Plaintiff
bears the burden of proving that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor

Breaux v. U.S.D.H.H.S., 20 F.3d 1324 (5th Cir. 1994). See also Calvin v. Astrue, No. 12-1144, 2014 WL
28864, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 2, 2014). On August 31, 2015, the District Court reversed the decision of the
Social Security Administration and remanded the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings. See
R. Doc. 20-1 at 2.
8 Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1080 (5th Cir. 1988).
9 The Defendant did file a brief response to the motion, but only to note the fees must be made payable to
the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff’s attorney. R. Doc. 21 at 1–2. Defendant submits that Plaintiff is entitled to
the amount requested in the motion. R. Doc. 21 at 1–2.
10 Plaintiff’s attorney expended 30.50 hours from May 2014 through September 2015. R. Doc. 20-2 at 1–2.
11 R. Doc. 20-1 at 4.
12 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).
13 Yoes v. Barnhart, 467 F.3d 426, 426 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
2
7

warrants a higher hourly rate.14 In this case, Plaintiff points to a recent decision of this
district in which $175.00 was accepted as a reasonable hourly rate under the EAJA.15
Further, the Court is aware of other recent decisions in this district in which $175.00
was deemed to be a reasonable hourly rate for purposes of the EAJA.16 Therefore, the
Court finds that $175.00 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate in this district.
III.

To Whom Defendant Shall Remit the Award
In Defendant’s response to the present motion, Defendant notes “the Court must

direct that any award of EAJA fees be payable to Plaintiff, not Plaintiff’s attorney.” 17
Defendant cites in support Astrue v. Ratliff, a recent decision of the United States
Supreme Court.18 The Court agrees with Defendant. In Astrue, the Supreme Court
explicitly held “that a § 2412(d) fees award is payable to the litigant.” 19 There, the
Supreme Court interpreted the term “prevailing party” in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) to
include only the litigant, and not the litigant’s attorney.20 Thus, this Court finds that any
award of attorney’s fees to Plaintiff must be made payable to Plaintiff, and not
Plaintiff’s attorney.
Accordingly;

See, e.g., Knight v. Barnhart, No. 02-1741, 2003 WL 21467533, at *2 (E.D. La. June 20, 2003).
See R. Doc. 20-1 at 4 (citing Dubois v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 13-2438, 2014 WL 6485639, at *2 (E.D. La.
Nov. 18, 2014)).
16 See, e.g., Cavin, 2014 WL 28864, at *2.
17 R. Doc. 21 at 1.
18 R. Doc. 21 at 1.
19 Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010).
20 Id. at 591–92. According to Justice Sotomayor, “The EAJA does not legally obligate the Government to
pay a prevailing litigant’s attorney, and the litigant’s obligation to pay her attorney is controlled not by the
EAJA but by contract and the law governing that contract.” Id. at 599 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
3
14
15

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, and Defendant is
hereby ordered to pay attorney’s fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $5,337.50 (30.50
hours at $175.00 per hour).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 23rd day of October, 2015.

SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4