Quintanilla v. Astrue

Filing 29

ORDER Denying Motion for Reconsideration re 28 Response filed by Yolanda Quintanilla. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (aej)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
YOLANDA QUINTANILLA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. SA:11-CV-1040-DAE

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 8, 2014, Plaintiff Yolanda Quintanilla’s counsel filed a
“Response” to this Court’s October 3, 2014 Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s
Motion for Attorney’s Fees. (Dkt. # 28.) The “Response” informs the Court that,
as cited in Plaintiff’s brief, the case of Edwards v. Barnhart, 214 F. Supp. 2d 700
(W.D. Tex. 2002) grants attorney’s fees to an attorney litigating in MidlandOdessa based upon the rate he customarily commanded in Dallas, his usual city of
practice. Plaintiff asserts that, based on Edwards, this Court improperly calculated
Plaintiff’s counsels rate based on the appropriate rate in San Antonio, rather than
Dallas, where Plaintiff’s counsel practices. Plaintiff’s counsel’s “Response” does
not request any adjustment of the Court’s October 3 Order, but simply states the

1

appropriate total of attorney’s fees in this case should be $11,204.38, as he initially
requested.
Although Plaintiff’s counsel’s “Response” is not in the traditional
form of a motion for reconsideration, the Court can find no other reason Plaintiff’s
counsel would file a “Response” to an order, and therefore, the Court shall
consider it as such.
“The [Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”)] requires, in relevant
part, that attorney’s fees be based upon ‘prevailing market rates’ for comparable
services.” Hamblen v. Colvin, No. 3:12–CV2009–BH, 2014 WL 1516157,
at* n.12 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2014). The Fifth Circuit recognizes that, therefore,
the EAJA contemplates that various locales require greater cost of living
adjustments than others, and permits differing adjustments to the fee cap. Yoes v.
Barnhart, 467 F.3d 426, 427 (5th Cir. 2006). This variance ensures that courts will
face the question of what forum provides the proper rate from which to calculate
an attorney’s reasonable hourly rate.
Although the Fifth Circuit has not spoken specifically to the EAJA, it
and the Supreme Court have answered the question in the context of other costshifting statutes. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984); McClain v. Lufkin Indus.,
Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 381 (2011). In civil rights cases, “‘reasonable’ hourly rates
‘are to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant
2

community.’” McClain, 649 F.3d at 381. As with the EAJA, the fee-shifting
awards in civil rights cases are grounded in two goals—“to facilitate plaintiffs’
access to the courts to vindicate their rights by providing compensation sufficient
to attract competent counsel” and ensuring the resulting fee awards are reasonable.
Id.; Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1082 (5th Cir. 1988) (“The purpose of [the
EAJA] is to ensure that there is sufficient representation for individuals who need
it while minimizing the cost of attorneys’ fees to the taxpayers.”). Because the
policy goals of the fee-shifting provisions of civil rights cases are in line with those
of the EAJA, the Court imports the Fifth Circuit’s civil-rights fee analysis to this
case.
The Fifth Circuit requires that fee awards be calculated according to
prevailing rates in the forum community. McClain, 649 F.3d at 381. However, the
Fifth Circuit allows for an exception to this principle when “out-of-district counsel
are proven to be necessary to secure adequate representation for a civil rights
plaintiff.” Id. Because there is no indication that out-of-district counsel was
necessary in this case, the Court affirms its prior calculation of the reasonable
hourly rate for Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court’s previous award of $10,282.00
stands.

3

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 16, 2014, San Antonio, Texas.

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

4