Reed v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER granting 18 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J Ayo on 11/26/2024. (crt,Taylor, L)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
BARBARA REED

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00483

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

MEMORANDUM RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO
THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 28 U.S.C. § 2412(D) filed by appellant Barbara Reed.

(Rec. Doc. 18). The Commissioner filed a response expressing no opposition to the motion.
(Rec. Doc. 20).
Reed filed an application for disability insurance benefits on December 13, 2021,
alleging disability beginning on July 28, 2021. After the application was denied initially on
March 31, 2022, and on reconsideration on April 3, 2023, she requested a hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge, who issued an unfavorable ruling on October 25, 2023. Reed’s
request for review was denied by the Appeals Council on February 1, 2024, and she
subsequently filed a federal appeal of the ALJ’s decision in this Court on April 10, 2024. On
August 14, 2024, the Court granted the Commissioner’s Unopposed Motion to Remand this
matter for further administrative action pursuant to the fourth sentence of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
(Motion, Rec. Doc. 14; Order, Rec. Doc. 15).
Reed now seeks a total of $8,040.00 in fees at the rate of $100.00 per hour for three
hours of paralegal time and $200.00 per hour for 38.7 hours of attorney time. In support of

1

this request, counsel submitted a schedule describing the services performed on Reed’s behalf
and the time billed in connection with each task in minimum increments of .10 hour. 1
Guidelines for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses Calculation
The EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the
United States fees and other expenses… 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). The Act thus places the burden on the Commissioner to show that
the stated statutory exceptions make an award of fees and expenses inappropriate.
Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F.3d 503, 506 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Herron v. Bowman, 788 F.2d
1127, 1130 (5th Cir. 1986)). A party who wins a sentence-four remand is a prevailing party.
Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993); Breaux v. United States Dep’t of Health &
Human Servs., 20 F.3d 1324 (5th Cir. 1994). Considering the Court’s fourth sentence remand
and the lack of opposition to the instant motion, this Court finds that Reed is entitled to an
award of reasonable attorney fees.
Reasonable Hourly Rate
The hourly rate at which an attorney fee award under the EAJA may be calculated is
determined “according to prevailing market rates in the relevant legal market.” Hopwood v.
Texas, 236 F.3d 256, 281 (5th Cir. 2000). Where the prevailing market rate exceeds the
$125.00 statutory cap, the court must examine whether “an increase in the cost of living or a

1

The original bill attached stated a total of $10,409.64 in fees at the rate of $120.00 per hour for four
hours of paralegal time and $243.75 or $251.25 per hour for 38.7 hours of attorney time. After
consultation between the parties, Reed’s counsel agreed to reduce his hourly fee to $200.00 per hour
for attorney time and $100.00 per hour for paralegal time and to reduce the paralegal time to three
hours for a reduced fee request of $8,040.00. (Rec. Doc. 18-7, p. 2). “All expenses including the $225.00
pro hac vice filing fee have been waived.” (Rec. Doc. 18-4, ¶ 6). One of the paralegal hours was spent
preparing the pro hac vice filing fee and the Court assumes this is the hour that was reduced.

2

special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings
involved justifies a higher rate.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii).
In Carr v. Kijakazi, 2023 WL 3168676 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2023), adopted by, 2023 WL
3168343 (W.D. La. Apr. 28, 2023), this Court reconsidered the prevailing market rate for
Social Security fee awards under the EAJA. The Court found an hourly rate of $200.00 was
reasonable based on increases in cost of living since its last examination of the issue in 2016,
wherein it set the prevailing rate at $175.00 per hour. 2023 WL 3168676, at *3 (citing
Montgomery v. Colvin, 2016 WL 4705730 (W.D. La. Aug. 16, 2016), adopted by, 2016 WL
4705573 (W.D. La. Sept. 8, 2016)).
Reasonable Hours Expended
The Commissioner does not oppose the number of hours claimed by Reed’s counsel.
Furthermore, the undersigned concludes that the claimed time expenditure of 41.7 hours is
reasonable for this type of case.
Johnson Analysis
Having determined the lodestar by establishing the prevailing market rate and the
hours reasonably expended, the next step requires that the court analyze the twelve Johnson
factors to determine if the lodestar requires adjustment. Johnson v. Ga. Hwy. Express, Inc.,
488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by, Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S.
87 (1989).

The lodestar is presumptively reasonable and should be modified only in

exceptional cases. Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas, 829 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 2016)
(citing Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 553–54 (2010)).

In this case, the

lodestar is $200.00 x 38.7 or $7,740.00 plus $100.00 x 3 or $300.00 for a total of $8,040.00.
Under Johnson, the court should consider the impact of the following factors on the
lodestar: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the question; (3)

3

the skill required of the attorney; (4) the preclusion of other work; (5) the customary fee; (6)
whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed; (8) the amount involved
and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the
“undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with
the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Johnson, supra, at 718-19. Factors 1, 3, 8, 9,
and 12 are reflected in the lodestar. Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d
761 (5th Cir. 1996) (cautioning court against double-counting certain Johnson factors already
fairly represented by the lodestar).

No evidence before this Court indicates that an

adjustment of the lodestar under factors 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 or 11 is warranted in this case.
Payment of the EAJA Award
Reed’s counsel contends that because she assigned her right to attorney’s fees to
counsel, any payment of fees should be made directly to counsel, provided Reed does not owe
a federal debt. However, this Court consistently has rejected this argument. Carr, supra, at
*4 (citing McLeland v. Astrue, 2010 WL 3704915, at *2 (W.D. La.)). EAJA awards are payable
directly to the prevailing party, not his attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 593 (2010);
Jackson v. Astrue, 705 F.3d 527, 531 n.11 (5th Cir. 2013). This Court therefore finds that the
award should be made payable to Reed but sent in care of her attorney.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO
THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 28 U.S.C. § 2412(D) (Rec. Doc. 18) is GRANTED based on

this Court’s finding that the lodestar established as $200.00 per hour for 38.7 hours of
attorney time and $100.00 per hour for three hours of paralegal time should be applied under
applicable law and jurisprudence. Accordingly, it is further
ORDERED that the sum of $8,040.00 in attorney fees and is awarded to Appellant

4

Barbara Reed as an EAJA attorney fee.

The Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration shall remit to Reed’s counsel a check made payable to Barbara Reed in the
amount of $8,040.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2412(d)(1)(A) within 45 days of the issuance of
this Order.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of November, 2024 at Lafayette, Louisiana.

5