Taylor v. Astrue

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $4,322.68 and costs in the amount of $362.00. Signed by Magistrate Judge William M Catoe on 9/10/08.(ladd, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA G R E E N V ILLE DIVISION W . Daniel Mayes, Petitioner, Iris Taylor, Plaintiff, vs. Michael J. Astrue, C om m issioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 6:07-1671-GRA-WMC ORDER

T h is matter is before the court on a petition for approval of attorney fees s u bm itte d by W . Daniel Mayes for his successful representation of the plaintiff in the u n d e rlying Social Security benefits action. The court may make such an award pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. §2412(d). T h e Commissioner's decision denying benefits to the plaintiff was reversed and re m a n de d for further administrative proceedings upon the motion of the Commissioner by o rd e r of the court on May 21, 2008. The petitioner seeks attorney fees of $4,322.68 ($163.12 p e r hour for 26.5 attorney hours) and costs of $362.00 ($350.00 filing fee and $12.00 for c e rtifie d mailing fees). The Commissioner does not object to the petitioner's request for a tto rn e y fees and costs.

AP P L IC AB L E LAW AND CONCLUSIONS T h e EAJA provides: [A ] court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other e x pe n se s . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . brought b y or against the United States . . . unless the court finds that the p o sitio n of the United States was substantially justified or that s p e c ial circumstances make an award unjust.

U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A). The eligibility requirements for an award of fees under the EAJA are: (1 ) that the claimant is a prevailing party; (2) that the government's position was not s u bs ta n tia lly justified; (3) that no special circumstances make an award unjust; and (4) that the c laim a n t timely filed his petition supported by an itemized statement. Id.; see also Crawford v . Sullivan, 935 F.2d 655, 656 (4th Cir.1991). T h e test for substantial justification is one of reasonableness ­ did the agency's p o sitio n have a "reasonable basis both in law and fact," or was it "justified to a degree that c o u ld satisfy a reasonable person." Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). This s ta n da rd allows the government some leeway in litigation without permitting it to adopt p o sitio n s arbitrarily. "[T]he government has the burden of proving that its litigation position was s u b s tan tially justified." Crawford v. Sullivan, 935 F.2d 655, 657 (4 th Cir. 1991) (citing Lively v. B o w e n , 858 F.2d 177, 180 (4 th Cir. 1988)). T h e plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action, and the government's position w as not substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A). The petitioner has provided an ite m ize d statement stating the time expended in preparing this case. The defendant does not o b je c t to an award of EAJA fees and further does not object to the amount sought by the p e t i ti o n e r . N o w , therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant pay to the plaintiff Four Thousand Three H u n d re d Twenty-two and 68/100 ($4,322.68) Dollars 1 in attorney fees and Three Hundred S ix ty-tw o and 00/100 ($362.00) Dollars in costs. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S e p te m b e r 10, 2008 G re e nv ille , South Carolina
This court understands that it is the Commissioner's practice is to make the check payable to the p la in tif f but to send the EAJA payment to the plaintiff's attorney's office, which reduces the risk that the a ttor n e y will not receive his fees from the plaintiff.
1

2