Crain v. Colvin

Filing 28

RULING granting 26 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act filed by plaintiff Martin Crain, is granted. Under the EAJA the plaintiff is awarded fees and expenses totaling $3,830.10. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/2/2015. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARTIN CRAIN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 14-12-SCR
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY
RULING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees
and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
number 26.

Record document

Defendant filed a response.1

The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) provides that the
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

United

States

was

substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award
unjust.”

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).

On October 15, 2015 the plaintiff obtained a ruling and
judgment in his favor under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
The final decision denying his claim for disability benefits was
reversed, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for
application of the proper legal standards, and reevaluation of the
plaintiff’s claim for benefits.

1

Record document number 27.

Defendant does not dispute that

the plaintiff is a prevailing party under the EAJA, and that the
other prerequisites for an award of fees and costs under the EAJA
are satisfied.2

Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to an award under

the EAJA, and the court must determine the amount of a reasonable
fee award. Defendant did not contest the number of hours for which
the attorneys seek to recover fees.3

Defendant, however, opposed

the plaintiff’s request for a rate of $181.45 an hour for work
performed in 2013, and $184.43 an hour for work done in 2014 and
2015.
The amount of reasonable fees the plaintiff is entitled to
recover is resolved as follows.
Hours Reasonably Expended
The lodestar analysis is used to determine a reasonable fee
award under the EAJA.4

The first lodestar component is the number

of hours for which the attorney seeks compensation.

Defendant did

2

Review of the record also demonstrates that the plaintiff is
a prevailing party and the other prerequisites for obtaining fees
and expenses under the EAJA are met.
See, 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(2)(B)(definition of party); Shalala v. Shaefer, 509 U.S.
292, 302-03; 113 S.Ct. 2625, 2632 (1993)(prevailing party;
timeliness); Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565, 108 S.Ct.
2541, 2550 (1988); Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1080 (5th Cir.
1988)(government must pay fees unless it proves its position
substantially justified).
3

Plaintiff also requested recovery of $20.10 in expenses for
postage. Defendant did not object to this request.
4

Sanders v. Barnhart, 2005 WL 2285403 (Sept. 19, 5th Cir.
2005)(unpublished). The lodestar method is limited in the context
of the EAJA by the statutory cap. Clevenger v. Chater, 977 F.Supp
776, n. 6 (M.D. La. 1997).
2

not oppose the plaintiff’s request for fees to compensate his
attorneys based on a total of 25.40 hours of work.5

Review of the

description of the services provided, and the amount of time listed
for the services, supports finding that an award based on 25.40
hours of attorney work is reasonable.
Reasonable Hourly Rate
The EAJA provides 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, such as the
limited availability of qualified attorney for the proceedings
involved, justifies a higher fee.”

§ 2412(d)(2)(A).

Plaintiff

requested an hourly rate above the statutory limit based on cost of
living adjustments from data on increases in the cost of living in
the Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas area.6

Plaintiff sought rates of

$181.45 an hour for work performed in 2013 and $184.43 an hour for
work done in 2014 and 2015.7

Defendant opposed this request and

argued the rate should be set at $150.00 an hour, which is
consistent with the usual rate set for work done in Social Security

5

Record document numbers 26-2 and 26-3, Exhibits A and B.

6

Record document number 26-4.

7

Any cost of living adjustment must be made to reflect the
hourly rate in the year the services were rendered, not the year
the fees are awarded. Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1076
(5th Cir. 1992).
3

cases in this district court from 2013 through 2015.8
Defendant’s arguments and cited cases are persuasive.
hourly rates sought by the plaintiff reflect the maximum

The

amount

the plaintiff could obtain - the $125 statutory cap adjusted for
increases
performed.

in

the

cost

of

living

in

the

years

the

work

was

It is well-established that the statutory rate plus a

cost of living increase establishes a ceiling rather than a floor
for setting a reasonable hourly rate.

The EAJA vests the district

court with discretion to arrive at a reasonable hourly rate based
on cost of living adjustments and other factors.9
Consideration of the statutory cap set, the goals of the EAJA,
recent cost of living increases, and the usual hourly rate awarded
for attorney’s work in Social security cases in this district,
supports the conclusion that $150.00 is a reasonable hourly rate to
compensate the plaintiff’s attorneys.

This hourly rate multiplied

by 25.40 hours of compensable time, results in a lodestar award of
$3,810.

When the postage expenses are added, the total EAJA award

to the plaintiff is $3,830.10.10

8

Record document number 27, Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access
to Justice Act, 28.U.S.C. Sec. 2412(d), pp. 3 and 4 (citing cases).
9

See, Clevenger, supra, at 780; Hall v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 367,
369-70 (5th Cir. 1995); Yoes v. Barnhart, 467 F.3d 426 (5th Cir.
2006); Robinson v. Barnhart, 197 Fed.Appx. 368 (5th Cir. 2006).
10

Under the EAJA fees are not awarded to the attorney, but are
awarded to the prevailing litigant, in this case the plaintiff.
(continued...)
4

Accordingly, the Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs under the
Equal Access to Justice Act filed by plaintiff Martin Crain, is
granted. Under the EAJA the plaintiff is awarded fees and expenses
totaling $3,830.10.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 2, 2015.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

(...continued)
Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 593, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 (2010).
5