HUMPHRIES
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 unopposed motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Plaintiff sought attorney's fees under the EAJA, requesting a rate higher than the statutory maximum due to cost of living increases. Plaintiff assign…
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. 37; “Motion”), filed November1, 2022. In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $4,147.55. Motion at 1-3, 5, 7, 10. Plaintiff represents that Defendant does not oppose the relief requested. Id. at 3. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates a total of 19 hours were expended by two attorneys in the representation of Plaintiff before the Court: 1.1 hours by attorney Richard A. Culbertson in 2021 and 0.1 hours by Mr. Culbertson in 2022; and 0.5 hours by attorney Sarah P. Jacobs in 2020, 16.2 hours by Ms. Jacobs in 2021, and 1.1 hours by Ms. Jacobs in 2022. Id. at 2, 7; see id. at 12-13 (attached Schedules of Hours). Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $207.78 for work performed in 2020, $217.53 for work performed in 2021, and $233.65 for work performed in 2022. Id. at 2, 7. 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. 37- 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
GRANTED.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant for attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,147.55 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 3. The Commissioner may exercise the discretion to honor Plaintiffs assignment of fees to counsel if the U.S. Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt to the U.S. Government. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on November 2, 2022.
ama KR. K kerbs
JAMES R. KLINDT
United States Magistrate Judge
kaw Copies to: Counsel of Record