Patterson v. Apfel
Decision Date | 02 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. CV 99-5033 AJW.,CV 99-5033 AJW. |
Parties | Sula Ann PATTERSON for Mike W. Chaney (deceased) Plaintiff, v. Kenneth APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
James Patrick Shea, Susan R. Wasserman Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for plaintiff.
Lawrence E. Kole, AUSA, Office of U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, CA, for defendant.
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, and plaintiff filed a reply.
Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. On February 17, 2000, the Court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and remanded the case to defendant pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings consistent with the Memorandum of Decision filed on February 16, 2000. Plaintiff timely filed this motion for an EAJA award in the total amount of $5,095.97, representing 37.25 hours of attorney's services at the rate of $134.12 per hour, plus $100.00 for costs.1
Under the EAJA, a prevailing party will be awarded reasonable attorney fees, unless the government demonstrates that its position in the litigation was "substantially justified," or that "special circumstances make an award unjust." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The government has the burden of proving that its position was substantially justified. Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1996).
Defendant does not contend that plaintiff is not entitled to an award of fees under the EAJA. He argues, however, that plaintiff's claimed hours were unreasonable and excessive, and that plaintiff therefore should be reimbursed for only twenty-one hours of attorney time.
Reasonableness of the number of hours claimed
Defendant claims that plaintiff's counsel's expenditure of 28.5 hours for reviewing the administrative record, conducting legal research, and drafting court documents is excessive. Defendant argues that those hours were unreasonable because plaintiff's counsel is experienced in social security matters and represented plaintiff at the administrative level, and therefore was "well-versed" in the law and the facts of this case.
Those factors do not justify a reduction in the hours claimed by plaintiff's counsel. Four of the 28.5 hours questioned by defendant were devoted to preparing for and appearing at the oral argument on February 9, 2000. [See Declaration of James P. Shea (the "Shea Declaration") at 10-11 (entries for May 13, 1999; October 8, 1999; December 8, 1999; and February 9, 2000)]. Defendant does not challenge the reasonableness of those hours. Plaintiff's counsel spent an additional 24 hours reviewing the administrative record, performing legal research, and drafting court documents, including the complaint, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and a reply memorandum. [See Shea Declaration at 10-12]. Contrary to defendant's assertions, the presentation of plaintiff's claims in this case required significantly more factual development and legal analysis than was required at the administrative level. Furthermore, the expertise of plaintiff's counsel does not make the hours expended unreasonable. Social security cases are fact-intensive and require a careful application of the law to the testimony and documentary evidence, which must be reviewed and discussed in considerable detail. The memoranda of points and authorities filed by plaintiff's counsel were detailed and thorough. Moreover, this case raised some issues that are not routine (for example, issues regarding the effect of plaintiff's suicide, and of the weight, if any, to be accorded his counselor's notes). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the number of hours claimed by plaintiff's counsel for reviewing the file, performing research, drafting court documents, and participating in oral argument was not excessive.
Defendant also argues that plaintiff's counsel did not adequately document the necessity for the 2.25 hours he claimed for reviewing or writing correspondence and for telephone conferences on various dates. [See Shea Declaration at 10-12 ( )]. Most of those entries adequately identify the nature of the correspondence or the person with whom plaintiff's counsel conferred. Moreover, the time claimed for those services (ranging from one-quarter to one-half hour) is not unreasonable. [See, e.g., Shea Declaration at 10 ( )]. On two occasions, plaintiff's counsel did not list separate entries for the "multiple telephone conferences" with the Court or with the Assistant United States Attorney that occurred in a single day. [See Shea Declaration at 11-12 (entries for November 8 and December 14, 1999)]. Given the relatively small amount of time involved, it was not unreasonable for plaintiff's counsel to consolidate the entries for a single date in this manner. Defendant also fails to note that plaintiff's counsel did not bill for brief amounts of time expended reviewing correspondence on several different dates. [See, e.g., Shea Declaration at 10-11 (entries for June 7, June 10, June 23, October 19, and November 8, 1999)].
In addition, a survey of several dozen cases in which attorney's fees were awarded in social security cases suggests that the 33.75 hours spent by plaintiff's counsel falls within the approved range.2 Plaintiff also is entitled to reimbursement for the three and a half hours of attorney time spent litigating this fee motion. See Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir. 1991) ().
For these reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's counsel reasonably expended a total of 33.75 hours litigating the merits of this case, plus an additional 3.5 hours litigating the EAJA fee motion.
Hourly rate
Defendant argues that the knowledge and skill of plaintiff's counsel do not provide a basis for exceeding the EAJA rate cap. That assertion is correct; however, plaintiff is entitled to an upward adjustment to compensate for inflation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) (); Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9th Cir. 1991) ( ). Relying on the figures provided by plaintiff's counsel, plaintiff is entitled to EAJA fees at the CPU-adjusted hourly rate of $134.12.3
Costs and expenses
As the prevailing party in this litigation, plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs and expenses under the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1) ( ); 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) & (d)(2)(A) ( ); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1) ( ); C.D. Cal. Local Rule 16 ( ); Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Catto, 815 F.Supp. 338, 344 (C.D.Cal.1993) ( ).
The Court concludes that plaintiff reasonably and necessarily incurred litigation costs of $100.00 for mileage and parking for five trips by a clerk or messenger to the courthouse for the filing of documents, as reflected on plaintiff's counsel's itemized statement.
For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff is entitled to EAJA fees in the amount of $4,995.97 for 37.25 hours of attorney time at $134.12 per hour, plus $100.00 for costs and expenses. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for an award of fees and costs under the EAJA is granted in the total amount of $5,095.97.
IT IS...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McMahon v. Astrue
...was ultimately filed in this case, does not warrant a reduction in the hours claimed by Plaintiff's counsel. See Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1213 (C.D.Cal.2000) (finding that counsel's expertise in social security matters and the fact that he was well-versed in the law and facts ......
-
Hill v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2:16-CV-1651-TLN-CMK
...expended unreasonable as social security cases are fact-intensive and require a careful application of the law. Patterson v. Apfel , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2000). As such, the Court cannot agree with Defendant's classification of this case as "routine" or that Plaintiff's Coun......
-
Kirk v. Berryhill, 2:13–cv–2571–EFB
...evidence.").Furthermore, the "expertise of plaintiff's counsel does not make the hours expended unreasonable."2 Patterson v. Apfel , 99 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2000). "Social security cases are fact-intensive and require a careful application of the law to the testimony and document......
-
Nguyen v. Kijakazi
... ... Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 1212, ... 1215 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1), ... (d)(1)(A), and (d)(2)(A)) ... ...
-
Issue Topics
...representing 37.25 hours of attorney’s services at the rate of $134.12 per hour, plus $100.00 for costs. Patterson v. Apfel , 99 F. Supp.2d 1212, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The Commissioner opposed the award, arguing that plaintiff’s claimed hours sought in her EAJA petition were “unreasonable ......
-
Attorneys' fees
...the plaintiff was entitled to an upward adjustment in the hourly rate under the EAJA to compensate for inflation. Patterson v. Apfel , 99 F. Supp.2d 1212, 1215 (C.D. Cal. 2000), citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (ii); Russell v. Sullivan , 930 F.2d 1443, 1446 (9 th Cir. 1991) (providing an e......
-
Issue topics
...representing 37.25 hours of attorney’s services at the rate of $134.12 per hour, plus $100.00 for costs. Patterson v. Apfel , 99 F. Supp.2d 1212, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The Commissioner opposed the award, arguing that plaintiff’s claimed hours sought in her EAJA petition were “unreasonable ......
-
Issue topics
...representing 37.25 hours of attorney’s services at the rate of $134.12 per hour, plus $100.00 for costs. Patterson v. Apfel , 99 F. Supp.2d 1212, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2000). The Commissioner opposed the award, arguing that plaintiff’s claimed hours sought in her EAJA petition were “unreasonable ......