Anderson v. Colvin

Filing 34

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT denying 32 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Edward F. Shea. (AY, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5
6
7

CASE NO. 4:15-CV-5091-EFS

MICHAEL ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

8

10

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO ALTER JUDGMENT

v.

9

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,

11
Defendant.
12
13

Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Michael

14

Anderson’s “Rule 59E Motion on This Court’s Order Granting In Part

15

Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA Fees.” ECF No. 32. On January 13, 2017,

16

the Court granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA Fees. ECF No.

17

31. Plaintiff now moves the Court to alter or amend that judgment. He

18

argues that the Court committed clear error by reducing the requested

19

attorney fee award. The Commissioner objects and argues that the Court

20

did not commit any legal or factual error that would justify altering

21

or amending the previous order. ECF No. 33

22

Three

grounds

justify

altering

or

amending

a

judgment

under

23

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e): “(1) the district court is

24

presented

25

committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly

26

unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in the controlling law.”

ORDER - 1

with

newly

discovered

evidence,

(2)

the

district

court

1

United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780

2

(9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff argues that the Court committed clear error

3

because it reduced the fee award despite the presence of a common core

4

of facts, and cites to Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), for

5

support.

6

In its previous order, the Court expressly referenced Hensley,

7

explaining: “Where a ‘plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that

8

is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours

9

spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the

10

amount of a reasonable fee.’ Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 440

11

(1983).” ECF No. 31 at 2. The Court concluded that Claim Two, the

12

claim on which Plaintiff lost, was “largely independent” of the claims

13

on which Plaintiff prevailed. ECF No. 31 at 3. Accordingly, the Court

14

found that it was appropriate under Hensley to reduce the requested

15

fees to account for the fact that Plaintiff did not prevail on all of

16

the issues.

17

In reducing the fees, the Court reduced only the reported time

18

spent writing the briefs, and not time spent reviewing the record,

19

doing legal research, writing the fact section, or reading Defendant’s

20

filings or Court orders, as the Court recognized that these activities

21

could not be clearly attributed to any of the four claims presented by

22

Plaintiff. The Court finds that this analysis accounted for time spent

23

on research or review that may have been common to the four claims

24

presented. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 (“Much of counsel’s time will

25

be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult

26

to divide the hours expended on a claim-by-claim basis.”); id. at 436–

ORDER - 2

1

37

2

determinations. The district court may attempt to identify specific

3

hours that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award to

4

account for the limited success. The court necessarily has discretion

5

in making this equitable judgment.”).

6

(“There

is

Plaintiff

no

precise

cites

to

rule

language

or

formula

from

Hensley

for

making

indicating

these

that

an

7

attorney fee award should be tied to the result, and that a successful

8

result may justify a “fully compensatory fee” even if the plaintiff

9

did not prevail on all alternative grounds for relief. ECF No. 32 at 4

10

(citing

Hensley,

11

correct,

12

successful result in this case. The Court upheld the ALJ’s finding on

13

Claim Two and advised that the ALJ did not need to reconsider or

14

reweigh

15

Accordingly, this claim was not simply an alternative argument for the

16

relief granted by the Court, but was instead a separate argument upon

17

which relief was denied. The time spent on Claim Two was thus not

18

“expended in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved.” Hensley, 461

19

U.S. at 431.

the

461

Court

related

U.S.

notes

evidence

at

343–35).

that

on

While

Plaintiff

remand.

ECF

did

No.

this
not

25

contention
obtain

at

a

11–12,

is

fully

21.

20

The Court finds that it correctly analyzed the law regarding

21

EAJA fee awards and thus denies Plaintiff’s motion to alter or amend

22

the judgment.

23

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

24

1.

Plaintiff

Michael

Anderson’s

“Rule

59E

Motion

on

This

25

Court’s Order Granting In Part Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA

26

Fees,” ECF No. 32, is DENIED.

ORDER - 3

1

2.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

This file shall remain CLOSED.
The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this

Order and provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this

1st

day of March 2017.

5
s/Edward F. Shea
EDWARD F. SHEA
Senior United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Q:\EFS\Civil\2015\5091.Anderson.ord.deny.59e.alter.lc02docx.docx

ORDER - 4