Prince v. Colvin
Decision Date | 25 February 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 13–CV–4804–P.,13–CV–4804–P. |
Parties | Gregory Charles PRINCE, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
William L. Fouche, Jr., Law Office of William Fouche, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.
Thomas E. Chandler, Social Security Administration, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge has issued Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. No one has filed any objection to the FCR. After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the Court finds that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Having reviewed the FCR for clear error, it is satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. And it GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees Under the “Bad Faith” Provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act (doc. 21). As recommended, Plaintiff is awarded $13,228.90 in attorneys' fees and the award shall be made payable to Plaintiff but mailed to his attorney of record.
Plaintiff Gregory Charles Prince's Application for Attorneys Fees Under the “Bad Faith” Provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act [Dkt. No. 21] has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) by Chief Judge Jorge A. Solis. The undersigned issues the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that Plaintiff's Application for Attorneys Fees Under the “Bad Faith” Provision of the Equal Access to Justice Act [Dkt. No. 21] should be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Gregory Charles Prince successfully appealed the denial of his application for disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments. After Plaintiff sought judicial review of a final adverse decision of the Commissioner of Social Security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), after Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or the “Commissioner”), filed an answer, and after Plaintiff filed his opening brief, see Dkt. Nos. 1, 10, & 17, the Commissioner only then, on the eve of her briefing deadline, filed an Unopposed Motion to Remand, see Dkt. No. 18. In support of the remand motion, the Commissioner explained:
Chief Judge Solis granted the Unopposed Motion to Remand [Dkt. No. 18], reversing the decision of the Commissioner and remanding the action for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of U.S.C. § 405(g), and then entered judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 19 & 20.
Plaintiff then moved for an award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, invoking Section 2412(b)'s common-law provision, which authorizes a fee award at market hourly rates, or, alternatively, Section 2412(d), which authorizes a fee award at capped hourly rates. See Dkt. No. 21. The Commissioner does not object to all of Plaintiff's request but objects to an award under Section 2412(b)'s common-law provision and objects to the number of hours that Plaintiff's counsel devoted the case as being excessive. See id. at 1–2; Dkt. No. 24.
The undersigned held oral argument on Plaintiff's application on January 22, 2015 and, in preparing these findings, conclusions, and recommendation, has benefitted from the arguments of both counsel as to the Commissioner's objections.
“There are two distinct methods for a district court to award attorneys' fees under the EAJA.” Gate Guard Servs. L.P. v. Solis,
Civ. A. No. V–10–91, 2013 WL 3873275, at *3 (S.D.Tex. July 24, 2013).
“Under the first method, the court is required to grant attorneys' fees to a prevailing party against the United States, unless there are special circumstances that make the award unjust or the government can show that it was substantially justified in its legal position.”Id. at *4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ). Thus, under Section 2412(d), the Court must award attorneys' fees and expenses if: (1) the claimant is the “prevailing party”; (2) the Government's position was not “substantially justified”; and (3) there are not special circumstances that make an award unjust. See Murkeldove v. Astrue, 635 F.3d 784, 790 (5th Cir.2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ). To be the “prevailing party” for purposes of the EAJA, the claimant must obtain a “sentence four” judgment reversing denial of disability benefits and requiring further proceedings before the agency. See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300–02, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993).
But “[t]he EAJA further permits a court to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party to the same extent it may award fees in cases involving other parties, whether by statute or common law.” Gate Guard, 2013 WL 3873275, at *4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) ). Specifically, Section 2412(b) states that “[t]he United States shall be liable for such fees and expenses to the same extent that any other party would be liable under the common law or under the terms of any statute which specifically provides for such an award.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) ; see also Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401, 406, 124 S.Ct. 1856, 158 L.Ed.2d 674 (2004). The so-called American Rule provides that litigants pay their own attorneys' fees and that the prevailing party in civil litigation may not collect attorneys' fees from the losing party. See Marx v. General Revenue Corp., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1166, 1175, 185 L.Ed.2d 242 (2013). “Under section 2412(b) the federal government is subject to common law and statutory exceptions to the American Rule forbidding fee-shifting,” Knights of Ku Klux Klan, Realm of La. v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Bd., 735 F.2d 895, 898 (5th Cir.1984) (footnote omitted), and so Section 2412(b) “makes the federal government subject to the ‘bad faith’ exception to the ‘American Rule’ on attorneys' fees,” Gate Guard, 2013 WL 3873275, at *4 (citing Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1080, n. 3 (5th Cir.1988) ). The bad-faith or common-law “exception allows an award of attorneys' fees where the party seeking the award can show that the government has acted in ‘bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons.’ ” Id. (quoting Baker, 839 F.2d at 1081 ).
“The court may consider conduct both during and prior to the litigation, although the award may not be based solely on the conduct that led to the substantive claim.” Perales v. Casillas, 950 F.2d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir.1992) ; accord Sanchez v. Rowe, 870 F.2d 291, 294, 295 (5th Cir.1989) ( . In Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075 (5th Cir.1988), in the Social Security appeal context, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found Section 2412(b) bad faith based on litigation-related conduct at the Appeals Council stage. See 839 F.2d at 1081–82 ; accord Sanchez, 870 F.2d at 294 .
“The distinction between [Subsections 2412(b) and 2412(d) ] is of considerable consequence in the calculation of amount of fees,” because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hart-Bevan v. Kijakazi
... ... 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), (d)(1)(A). The Commissioner has the ... burden of proving substantial justification. Prince v ... Colvin, 94 F.Supp.3d 787, 794 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (citing ... Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 602 (5th Cir. 2001)) ... ...
-
Sherwood v. Tenn. Valley Auth.
...a court determines that the government "has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons." Prince v. Colvin, 94 F. Supp. 3d 787, 796 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court notes that this is the same bad-faith determination required for the imp......
- Jak Prods., Inc. v. Bayer
-
Ogunti v. Kijakazi
...are reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), (d)(1)(A). The burden of proving substantial justification is on the government. Prince v. Colvin, 94 F.Supp.3d 787, 794 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (citing Sims v. Apfel, 238 F.3d 597, 602 (5th Cir. 2001)). “Substantial justification” under the EAJA means that the......