MARRAZZO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Filing
26
OPINION AND ORDER granting 22 Motion for Attorney Fees, etc. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 5/19/2020. (lag, )
Case 2:18-cv-02725-SRC Document 26 Filed 05/19/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 728
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
KIM MARRAZZO,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 18-2725 (SRC)
OPINION & ORDER
:
CHESLER, District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on the motion for attorney’s fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 406(b), by counsel to Plaintiff Kim Marrazzo. Although the Commissioner responded to the
motion, it appears to be only clarifying, not opposing. For the reasons stated below, the motion will
be granted.
In 2018, Plaintiff and Counsel entered into an agreement for Counsel to represent Plaintiff in
the federal Social Security appeal process. The agreement provided for a contingent fee
arrangement, with Plaintiff agreeing that Counsel was entitled to 25% of retroactive benefits
awarded. Counsel represented Plaintiff through the appeal process. Plaintiff ultimately prevailed
and, on Febuary 18, 2020, the Social Security Administration issued an Award Notice stating the
amount of past due benefits due to the Plaintiff, $112,248. Twenty-five percent of the past due
benefits amounts to $28,062 ($112,248 x 25%=$28,062). Counsel acknowledges that he failed to
submit a timely request for payment of EAJA fees for the federal appeal portion of the case and
asks this Court to deduct the EAJA payment his client would likely have obtained:
1
Case 2:18-cv-02725-SRC Document 26 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 729
We seek approval of a fee of $28,061.90 for 32.1 hours of attorney time. Ms.
Marrazzo should be credited with the $6,460.92 in EAJA fees that could have been
secured but which were not pursued, resulting in a net contingent fee of $21,600.98.
(Pl.’s Br. 6.) This ensures that Counsel is awarded only the fees he is entitled to and that Plaintiff
is not penalized for Counsel’s error. Counsel now asks this Court to authorize payment of that
amount of fees. Counsel contends that the requested fee is fair and reasonable given that Plaintiff
recouped six years in wrongfully denied past-due benefits thus far, and the number of hours spent
pursuing Plaintiff’s federal court case and on the administrative portion of this case (approximately
32 hours in total).
The statute, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A), states:
Whenever a court renders a judgment favorable to a claimant under this title [42
USCS §§ 401 et seq.] who was represented before the court by an attorney, the court
may determine and allow as part of its judgment a reasonable fee for such
representation, not in excess of 25 percent of the total of the past-due benefits to
which the claimant is entitled by reason of such judgment . . .
The statute requires that the fee must be reasonable. Plaintiff and his counsel entered into a
contingent fee agreement, under which counsel is entitled to a fee of 25 percent of the past due
benefits awarded to Plaintiff. Because this is within the statutory maximum allowed by § 406(b),
and taking into account the highly successful result obtained for Plaintiff, the amount of time spent
on the case, counsel’s experience and normal hourly rate, and the risk inherent in taking cases on
contingency, the Court concludes that the requested fee is reasonable. The deduction for the Equal
Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) fees that Plaintiff should have received, but did not because of
Counsel’s error, ensures that Plaintiff is not penalized for Counsel’s error.
For these reasons,
IT IS ON THIS 19th DAY OF May, 2020
2
Case 2:18-cv-02725-SRC Document 26 Filed 05/19/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 730
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Docket Entry No. 22) is
GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Court authorizes a payment to Glenn B. Carey, Esquire, in the amount
of $21,600.98 in attorney’s fees which have been withheld from Plaintiff's past-due benefits for
court-related services.
s/ Stanley R. Chesler
STANLEY R. CHESLER, U.S.D.J.
3
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?