TOTHEROW
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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.
The court granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, finding the requested amount reasonable and justified by cost of living increases.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the EAJA, requesting a rate higher than the statutory default due to cost of living increases. The defendant di…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assignment Of Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 21; “Motion”), filed January 18, 2023. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $3,496.29. Motion at 1-3, 4. Plaintiff represents that Defendant does not oppose the relief requested. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates a total of 14.9 hours were expended by two attorneys in the representation of Plaintiff before the Court: 1.0 hour by attorney Richard A. Culbertson in 2022; and 13.9 hours by attorney Sarah P. Jacobs in 2022 and 2023. Id. at 2, 6; see id. at 10-11 (attached Schedules of Hours). Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $234.65. Id. at 2, 6. Plaintiff is seeking a higher hourly rate than the $125 specified by statute based on the increase in the cost of living since 1996, when the attorney’s fee rate was last adjusted by Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (permitting fee awards at rates higher than $125 per hour upon the Court’s determination that cost of living has increased). Having examined the Consumer Price Index and the representations made in the Motion, the Court concludes an increase in inflation does justify a proportionate increase in attorneys’ fees.1 Further, the number of hours expended is reasonable.
Plaintiff has assigned his rights to any entitlement of attorney’s fees due under the EAJA to his counsel. Motion at 2; Retainer Agreement (Doc. No. 21- 1). Plaintiff represents as follows regarding the assignment: [A]fter the Court issues an order awarding EAJA fees to Plaintiff, the Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the government. If the U.S. Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, the government will accept Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA Fees and pay fees directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.
Motion at 2. In light of the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 21) is
GRANTED.
Jom Ke
JAMES R. KLINDT
United States Magistrate Judge kaw Copies to: Counsel of Record