Benitez v. Saul

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Florida
DecidedAugust 4, 2022
Docket0:20-cv-61884
StatusUnknown

This text of Benitez v. Saul (Benitez v. Saul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benitez v. Saul, (S.D. Fla. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-61884-BLOOM/Valle

MARY BENITEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Mary Benitez’s Unopposed Motion to Reopen Case Administratively and to Issue Final Judgment and for Authorization of Attorney’s Fee Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. [§] 406(b), ECF No. [31] (“Motion”), filed on August 2, 2022. The Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a district court may award a successful Social Security claimant a “reasonable” amount of attorney’s fees, not to exceed twenty-five percent of the total past due benefits awarded to the claimant. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 795 (2002). In situations where a claimant also received fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), the claimant’s attorney must “refun[d] to the claimant the amount of the smaller fee.” Id. at 796 (quotation marks omitted; alteration in the original). Here, Plaintiff’s attorney (“Movant”) requests an attorney’s fee of $13,324.28, which is twenty-five percent of the amount awarded to Plaintiff. ECF No. [31] at 2. Movant’s request is Case No. 20-cv-61884-BLOOM/Valle

consistent with the twenty-five percent contingent fee agreement between Movant and Plaintiff. Id. Accepting Movant’s assertion that she spent 23.50 hours on this case, the requested fee amounts to $311.67 per hour. ECF No. [31-1] at 8. She asserts that her normal hourly rate is $400.00 per hour. Jd. The Court finds Movant’s request to be reasonable. See, e.g., Coppett v. Barnhart, 242 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1384-85 (S.D. Ga. 2002) (finding a twenty-five percent award pursuant to a contingency agreement, amounting to an hourly rate of $350.49, to be reasonable). Movant is entitled to a total of $13,324.28 in attorney’s fees. Given that Movant has already received an award of $6,000.00 in attorney’s fees from the Social Security Administration, see ECF No. [31] at 2, Movant is entitled to an additional $7,324.28 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The EAJA award of $4,905.62 shall be refunded to Plaintiff upon Movant’s receipt of the $7,324.28 award. ECF No. [30]; see Gisbrecht, 535 U.S. at 796. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [31], is GRANTED. Plaintiffs counsel is awarded an additional attorney’s fee of $7,324.28. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, on August

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gisbrecht v. Barnhart
535 U.S. 789 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Coppett v. Barnhart
242 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (S.D. Georgia, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Benitez v. Saul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benitez-v-saul-flsd-2022.