Thornton v. Social Security Administration
Filing
19
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle. (ijg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BRENDA THORNTON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 15-407
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY
SECTION “B”(5)
ORDER AND REASONS*
I.
NATURE OF MOTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s, Brenda Thornton, “Motion for
Attorney’s Fees and Costs” (Rec. Doc. 17) and Defendant’s, Carolyn
W. Colvin, opposition thereto (Rec. Doc. 18). Plaintiff seeks
payment of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this Court’s March
22, 2016 Order and Reasons remanding Plaintiff’s case to the
Commissioner for further proceedings. (Rec. Doc. 17-2 at 2). For
the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion
is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff filed the instant suit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on February 9, 2015,
requesting
that
the
Court
review
the
final
decision
of
the
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied
Plaintiff Social Security disability benefits and SSI benefits.
(Rec. Doc. 1). Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
*
We are grateful for work on this matter by Courtney Harper, a Loyola University
New Orleans College of Law intern with our Chambers.
on June 25, 2015. (Rec. Doc. 8). On August 20, 2015, Defendant
filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. 12), and
Plaintiff filed a Reply to that motion on September 1, 2015 (Rec.
Doc. 13). On February 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge North issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that the ALJ’s decision
denying Plaintiff’s claim be remanded to the Commissioner. (Rec.
Doc. 14). On March 22, 2016, this Court approved the Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation and ordered the matter remanded to the
Commissioner for further proceedings. (Rec. Doc. 15). Plaintiff
filed the instant motion for attorney’s fees and costs under the
Equal Access to Justice Act on June 20, 2016. (Rec. Doc. 17).
Defendant filed an opposition on June 29, 2016, one day late
according to L.R. 7.5. (Rec. Doc. 18).
III. CONTENTIONS OF MOVANT
Plaintiff moves pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, arguing that Plaintiff’s counsel is
entitled to attorney’s fees and costs for representation in this
civil action. Plaintiff cites P.L. 104-121, Title II, Subtitle C,
which amends 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) to increase the statutory
ceiling for EAJA awards from $75.00 to $125.00 per hour. Plaintiff
argues it is entitled to legal fees in the amount of $3,025 plus
the filing fee of $350, for a total of $3,375.
2
IV.
CONTENTIONS OF OPPONENT
Defendant agrees that Plaintiff is entitled to receive $3,025
in EAJA fees for 24.2 hours of work. However, Defendant argues
that Plaintiff is not entitled to $350 in costs. Specifically,
Defendant cites Local Rule 54.3 which requires the party seeking
costs to file “a motion to tax costs on the forms prescribed by
the court” within 35 days of receiving notice of entry of judgment.
Defendant asserts that Plaintiff failed to timely file a request
for costs and improperly combined the request for costs with a
request
for
EAJA
fees.
Accordingly,
Defendant
argues
that
Plaintiff’s request for costs should be denied.
V.
STANDARD OF LAW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides in pertinent
part that, “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court
order provides otherwise, costs--other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Under the EAJA, a party
who obtains a remand under the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. §
405(g) is a prevailing party. Sullivan v. Hudson, 490 U.S. 877,
892
(1989).
attorney’s
Local
fees
Rule
“must
54.2
provides
submit
to
that
the
a
court
party
a
seeking
verified,
contemporaneous report reflecting the date, time involved, and
nature of the services performed.” Local Rule 54.3 governing
certification of costs provides that:
3
Within 35 days of receiving notice of entry of
judgment, unless otherwise ordered by the
court, the party in whose favor judgment is
rendered and who is allowed costs, must serve
on the attorney for the adverse party and file
with the clerk a motion to tax costs on the
forms prescribed by the court, together with
a certification that the items are correct and
that the costs have been necessarily incurred.
(Emphasis added).
L.R. 54.3 (emphasis added).
VI.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff urges the Court to award $3,025 in legal fees and
$350 in costs based upon 24.2 hours billed at a rate of $125 per
hour. Defendant contends that the Court should deny Plaintiff’s
request for costs due to Plaintiff’s failure to satisfy the
requirements of Local Rule 54.3. This Court finds that denial of
costs is warranted.
Particularly, the parties do not dispute that the Court’s
March 22, 2016, order constituted a final judgment. (Rec. Doc. 172 at 2 and Rec. Doc. 18 at 1). There is also no dispute that
Plaintiff filed the instant motion for attorney’s fees and costs
on June 20, 2016. (Rec. Doc. 17 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff failed to
file the motion for costs within 35 days of receiving notice of
judgment. Plaintiff also improperly combined the motion for costs
with a motion for attorney’s fees, thereby failing to satisfy the
form requirements of Local Rule 54.3. However, Plaintiff’s motion
satisfied Local Rule 54.2 governing attorney’s fees. As such, $350
4
must be subtracted from the amount requested by Plaintiff. Thus,
Plaintiff should receive only $3,025 as attorney’s fees with
respect to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
VII. CONCLUSION
In light of the above,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Rec. Doc. 17) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Defendant pay to Plaintiff
attorney’s fees in the amount of three thousand twenty-five and
NO/100 dollars ($3,025).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of July, 2016.
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?