Lantrip v. Colvin

Filing 19

ORDER granting 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Signed by District Judge Richard Voorhees on 6/23/2017. (khm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHESVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00227-RLV REBECCA LANTRIP, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 18). In her Motion, Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,160.00, representing 22.25 hours of attorney work at an hourly rate of $186.97. Id. Plaintiff represents that Defendant consents to the fee request and agrees that it is reasonable. Id. at 3. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s request as well as the evidence submitted in support of the request and finds that the Plaintiff’s requested hourly rate and the hours spent on this matter are reasonable.1 See, e.g., Rogers v. Astrue, 2015 WL 9239000, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 2015) (Voorhees, J.). 1 In the future, this Court requests that the attorney add more detail to the time log to reflect the actual hours spent on specific tasks at each stage of the proceeding to avoid the initial appearance that hours spent on certain tasks are excessive. For example, counsel’s time log lists three hours for writing a three-page response brief. (Doc. 18-1). On its face, this time entry appears excessive; however, the Court notes that, unlike with respect to the memorandum for summary judgment, the time log does not include an entry for reviewing case law and research relative to the response brief. When the time for those tasks is considered, the three hour entry for the response brief is reasonable and will be awarded as requested. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff be awarded from Defendant the sum of $4,160.00 in attorney’s fees, subject to any valid offset. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). SO ORDERED. Signed: June 23, 2017 2

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?