SCRIPTER
v.
COMMISSIONER

M.D. Fla. | 2023-06-23
No. 2:23-cv-39
District Court, M.D. Florida (2023)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court granted Plaintiff's unopposed petition for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sought attorney fees and costs under the EAJA after the court reversed and remanded the Commissioner's decision. The Commissioner did not ob…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Prevailing Market Rates For Attorney Fees 28 U.S.C. § 2412(D) Prevailing Market Rates Lodestar Method For Attorney'S Fees

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prevailing Market Rates For Attorney Fees cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff Marjorie Scripter requests a fee and cost award under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 23.)1 The Commissioner does not object to the relief sought. The Court thus grants the motion. Earlier in this case, the Court entered an order (Doc. 21) reversing and remanding the Commissioner’s decision. Thus, under EAJA, Plaintiff moves for an award of $4,863.47 in fees. For Plaintiff to receive a fee and cost award under EAJA, these five conditions must be met: (1) she must file a timely application for attorney’s fees; (2) her net worth must have been less than $2 million dollars when the complaint was filed; (3) she must be the prevailing party in a non-tort suit

5.) After review, and considering the rate is uncontested, the Court finds it is reasonable. Plaintiff also filed an “Affidavit and Assignment of Fee.” (Doc. 23-1.) It provides: “I hereby assign any entitlement that I may have to a fee under

[EAJA], to my attorney, David B. Goetz.” (Id.) But Plaintiff acknowledges that after awarding EAJA fees, the Commissioner will determine whether she owes a federal debt to the Government. If no debt is owed, the Government will accept Plaintiff’s assignment, and the fees will be paid directly to counsel. (Doc.

23 at 5-6.) Thus, the fees awarded should be paid directly to counsel if the United States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed by Plaintiff. It is thus ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees (Doc. 23) is GRANTED and the Court awards Plaintiff $4,863.47 in attorney fees. This award will be paid directly to Plaintiff’s counsel if the United States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed by

Plaintiff. 2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner in the amount of $4,863.47 in attorney fees. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this June 23, 2023.

Me. Jai Kile C. Dudek” United States Magistrate Judge

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. involving the United States; (4) the position of the United States must not have been substantially justified; and (5) there must be no special circumstances that would make the award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1) & (2); Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158 (1990). Considering the motion, and with no opposition, the Court finds all conditions of EAJA have been met. EAJA fees are determined under the “lodestar” method—the number of hours reasonably expended on the matter multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Jean v. Nelson, 863 F. 2d 759, 773 (11th Cir. 1988). The resulting fee carries a strong presumption of reasonableness. City of Burlington v. Daque, 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992). After review of the services provided, the Court finds the hours expended by attorney David Goetz (20.7 hours) are reasonable. (Doc. 23 at 2.) EAJA fees are “based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services furnished,” not to exceed $125 per hour unless the Court determines an increase in the cost of living, or a special factor justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Thus, determining the appropriate hourly rate is a two-step process. The Court first determines the prevailing market rate; then, if the prevailing rate exceeds $125.00, the Court determines whether to adjust the hourly rate. Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F. 2d 1029, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1992). The prevailing market rates must be determined according to rates customarily charged for similarly complex litigation and are not limited to rates specifically for social security cases. Watford v. Heckler, 765 F. 2d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $234.95. (Doc. 23 at

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw