Stratton v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Filing 31

ORDER granting 27 Motion for Attorney Fees: It is hereby ORDERED that this motion is granted insofar as the Court adopts the parties stipulation 28 and awards Plaintiff $4,500.00 in attorney fees pursuant to EAJA. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 8/23/2019.(gnan )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Aaron Raulan Stratton,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 5:18-1674-BHH

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. In the motion, Plaintiff
seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,762.80, representing 24.5 attorney hours at the
hourly rate of $194.40. On August 21, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation for an EAJA
award, indicating that the parties agree that Plaintiff shall be awarded $4,500.00 in
attorney’s fees for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection
with this action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
Attorney’s fees may be awarded pursuant to EAJA where the government’s position
is not substantially justified. The substantial justification test is one of reasonableness in
law and fact. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). The district court has
broad discretion to set the attorney fee amount. “[A] district court will always retain
substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award. Exorbitant, unfounded, or
procedurally defective fee applications . . . are matters that the district court can recognize.”
Hyatt v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Res., 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing
Comm’r v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990)). Moreover, the court should not only consider
the “position taken by the United States in the civil action,” but also the “action or failure to

act by the agency upon which the civil action is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D), as
amended by P.L. 99-80, § 2(c)(2)(B).
After consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 27) is
granted insofar as the Court adopts the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 28) and awards
Plaintiff $4,500.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to EAJA. In accordance with the parties’
stipulation, the Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff has any outstanding federal
debt to be offset from the attorney’s fees, and if Plaintiff has no outstanding federal debt,
then the Commissioner will honor Plaintiff’s assignment of attorney’s fees to counsel and
make the check payable to Plaintiff’s counsel. However, if Plaintiff has outstanding federal
debt, then the Commissioner will make the check payable to Plaintiff directly and deliver
the check to the business address of Plaintiff’s counsel, and the amount of fees payable
to Plaintiff will be the balance of the stipulated attorney’s fees remaining after subtracting
the amount of Plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt. If Plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt
exceeds the stipulated amount of attorney’s fees, then the stipulated amount will be used
to offset that debt and no amount shall be paid to Plaintiff.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Bruce H. Hendricks
The Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks
United States District Judge
August 23, 2019
Charleston, South Carolina

1

As the Supreme Court made clear in Astrue v. Ratliff, attorney’s fees under EAJA are made payable
to the prevailing litigant and not to the litigant’s attorney. 560 U.S. 586, 598 (2010) (holding that the plain text
of EAJA requires that attorney’s fees be awarded to the litigant, thus subjecting EAJA fees to an offset of any
pre-existing federal debts).

2