Goodwin v. Astrue

Filing 29

ORDER granting 27 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge James C. Dever III on 3/1/2014. (Edwards, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
EASTERN DIVISION
Case No.4: 12-cv-00289-D
)
ADA GOODWIN,
)
SSN: xxx-xx-5729
Plaintiff,
)
)
)

vs.

)

ORDER

)

)
Carolyn Colvin,
)
ACTINGCOMMISSIONER )
OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
)
Defendant.
)

Plaintiffs counsel has moved for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. For the reasons stated herein, the
plaintiffs motion is GRANTED.
DISCUSSION
The Equal Access to Justice Act provides that parties who prevail in litigation
against the United States are entitled to payment for reasonable attorney's fees unless the
United States was "substantially justified" in its litigatory position. 28 U.S.C. §
2412(d)(1)(A). In order to establish eligibility for an award under the act, the claimant
must show that she is (i) the prevailing party; (ii) that the government's position was not
substantially justified; (iii) that no special circumstances make an award unjust, and (iv)
that the fee application was submitted to the court within thirty days of final judgment
and was supported by an itemized statement. See, Crawford v. Sullivan, 935 F.2d 655,
656 (4th Cir. 1991 ). Where, as here, the district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff by

remanding the matter to the ALJ, the plaintiff is the "prevailing party." See, Shalala v.
Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-302 (1993).
"Once a party establishes prevailing party status, the burden shifts to the
Commissioner to demonstrate that his position in the underlying litigation was
substantially justified." Dixon v. Astrue, No. 5:06-cv-77-JG, 2008 WL 360989 at *2
(E.D.N.C. Feb 8, 2008)(citations omitted). Substantial justification analysis examines
"whether the government acted reasonably in causing the litigation or in taking a stance
during the litigation" from the "totality of the circumstances." Roanoke River Basin
Ass'n v. Hudson, 991 F.2d 132, 139 (4th Cir. 1993). Here, the Court finds that there is no
reason that an award of fees in this case would be unjust. As such, the Court finds in
favor of the Plaintiff on eligibility requirements (ii) and (iii).
Finally, the Court considers the procedural aspects of eligibility. Judgment was
entered in this matter on November 25, 2013. The government had sixty days to appeal
that judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). When the
government failed to appeal this Court's judgment it became a final judgment and the
claimant had thirty days from that date to file a petition for attorney's fees under EAJA.
The plaintiff filed a petition for fees on February

ih, 2014 - within the proper time

frame. Additionally, the plaintiffs motion was accompanied by an itemized statement
supporting the fees requested and a statement that plaintiffs net worth is less than
$2,000,000.00. Plaintiff has requested $801.99 in fees and $350.00 in costs.
Having considered the EAJA's eligibility requirements the Court grants the
plaintiffs motion.

2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs motion is granted and the plaintiff is
granted fees in the amount of $801.99 and costs in the amount of $350.00 pursuant to
EAJA.
SO ORDERED.
This is the _1_ day of

Mo..rch

, 2014.

Jam s C. Dever III
CHI F UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3