Rustamova v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
23
OPINION AND ORDER: the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiffs Motion (#18) for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses and AWARDS to Plaintiff attorneys fees and fees for paralegal services in the amount of $1,289.32 and costs in the amount of $414.15. (bb) Modified on 11/20/2012 to correct text and bolding (jtj).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ULMASKHON RUSTAMOVA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant.
JAMES S. COON
Swanson Thomas & Coon
820 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 228-5222
Attorneys for Plaintiff
S. AMANDA MARSHALL
United States Attorney
ADRIAN L. BROWN
Assistant United States Attorney
1000 S.W. Third Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
(503) 727-1003
1
- OPINION AND ORDER
3-11-CV-751-BR
OPINION AND ORDER
DAVID MORADO
Regional Chief Counsel
LEISA A. WOLF
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 MS/221A
Seattle, WA 98104-7075
(206) 615-2113
Attorneys for Defendant
BROWN, Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Ulmaskhon
Rustamova’s Motion (#18) for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and
Expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(b).
Defendant Commissioner objects only to the amount of
the attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiff.
For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s
Motion and AWARDS attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff in the amount of
$1289.32 and costs in the amount of $414.15.
BACKGROUND
On June 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action seeking
judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision denying
Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income under
Title XVI of the Social Security Act.
Plaintiff sought an Order
from this Court remanding this matter to the Commissioner for an
immediate payment of benefits.
2
- OPINION AND ORDER
Although the Commissioner conceded the Administrative Law
Judge erred in his evaluation of the evidence, the Commissioner
argued this matter should be remanded for further administrative
proceedings rather than for the immediate payment of benefits.
On June 13, 2012, the Court issued an Order directing the
remand of this matter for further proceedings.
Plaintiff now seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to EAJA.
Although the Commissioner agrees Plaintiff
is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees, the
Commissioner objects to the amount sought by Plaintiff on the
ground that it is inappropriately based on “block billing” by
counsel and his paralegal.
STANDARDS
Under EAJA a plaintiff may recover attorneys' fees in an
action against the government if (1) the plaintiff prevails in
the action, (2) the government’s litigation position was not
substantially justified and no special circumstances make an
award unjust, and (3) the requested attorneys' fees and costs are
reasonable.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
See also Perez-Arellano
v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 792 (9th Cir. 2002).
The court applies
the lodestar method to determine reasonable attorneys' fees in
Social Security matters.
Costa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012)(citing Hensley v.
3
- OPINION AND ORDER
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)(“To calculate the lodestar
amount, the court multiplies “the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation . . . by a reasonable hourly rate.”).
To determine the reasonable hourly rate in this District,
the Court uses the most recent Oregon State Bar Economic Survey
published in 2012 (Oregon 2012 Survey) as its initial benchmark.
Attorneys may argue for higher rates based on inflation,
specialty, or any number of other factors.
The Court has an independent duty to determine whether the
hours and hourly rates requested by the fee applicant are
“reasonable” and to reach its own lodestar value; i.e., “the
number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable
hourly rate.”
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
DISCUSSION
I.
Attorneys’ Fees.
The Commissioner does not challenge the hourly rates charged
by Plaintiff’s counsel (1 hour at $180.59 in 2011 and 1 hour at
$183.73 in 2012).
The Court concludes those hourly rates are
reasonable in light of his 35 years of experience and the nature
of his practice pursuant to the Oregon 2012 Survey.
Plaintiff also requests fees for paralegal services in 2011
at a rate of $108.75 per hour for 11.5 hours and in 2012 at a
rate of $110.83 per hour for 7 hours.
4
- OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, however, has
not provided any information regarding the reasonable hourly
rates for comparable paralegals in the Portland area.
In
addition, Plaintiff did not provide any information as to the
experience of the paralegal.
Accordingly, the Court reduces the
rate at which fees may be awarded for all paralegal time to $50
per hour (a minimal rate the Court can support on this scant
record).
Although the Commissioner does not object to the hourly
rates for Plaintiff’s attorneys or the attorneys’ paralegal, the
Commissioner, as noted, asserts the time spent by Plaintiff’s
attorneys and the paralegal is improperly identified in blockbilling format.
The Court disagrees and finds the tasks
performed and the time spent on those tasks by Plaintiff’s
counsel and the paralegal are adequately detailed in their
Motion.
Based on the foregoing, the Court awards to Plaintiff
$925.00 for paralegal services ($50.00 x 18.5 hours) and $364.32
for attorneys’ fees ($180.59 x 1 hour in 2011, and $183.73 x 1
hour in 2012) or a total of $1,289.32.
II.
Costs.
Plaintiff seeks an award of costs in the amount of $414.15
for filing fees and copying costs.
The Commissioner does not
object these costs, and the Court finds they were reasonably
incurred.
5
- OPINION AND ORDER
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s
Motion (#18) for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and
AWARDS to Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and fees for paralegal
services in the amount of $1,289.32 and costs in the amount of
$414.15.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 20th day of November, 2012.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge
6
- OPINION AND ORDER
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?