Caceres v. Commissioner of Social Security

S.D. New York

Caceres v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 29, 2023·No. 1:18-cv-06790-KHP·Unknown

Opinion

USL SUNT DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Fo anno DATE FILED: 11/29/2023 ANTONIO M. REYES CACERES, : Plaintiff, : : ORDER -against- : 18-CV-6790 (KHP) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant. :

nooo ---- +--+ -------X KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: On Monday, November 27, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 406(b), along with supporting documentation. Unlike attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, which are paid by the Government, fees awarded pursuant to § 406(b) are payable from the claimant’s past due benefits, and accordingly, Defendant has no direct financial stake in the outcome of this fee application. That said, Defendant may “play[ ] a part in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798 n.6. (2002). Accordingly, by Wednesday, December 20, 2023, Defendant shall file a letter stating its position, if any, on Plaintiff’s fee request and specifically stating whether Defendant considers the fee “reasonable” in accordance with the factors set forth in Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir. 1990). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 29, 2023 haurt He [ber New York, New York KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

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

USL SUNT DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: Fo anno DATE FILED: 11/29/2023 ANTONIO M. REYES CACERES, : Plaintiff, : : ORDER -against- : 18-CV-6790 (KHP) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, : Defendant. :

nooo ---- +--+ -------X KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: On Monday, November 27, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 406(b), along with supporting documentation. Unlike attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, which are paid by the Government, fees awarded pursuant to § 406(b) are payable from the claimant’s past due benefits, and accordingly, Defendant has no direct financial stake in the outcome of this fee application. That said, Defendant may “play[ ] a part in the fee determination resembling that of a trustee for the claimants.” Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 798 n.6. (2002). Accordingly, by Wednesday, December 20, 2023, Defendant shall file a letter stating its position, if any, on Plaintiff’s fee request and specifically stating whether Defendant considers the fee “reasonable” in accordance with the factors set forth in Wells v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 367, 372 (2d Cir. 1990). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 29, 2023 haurt He [ber New York, New York KATHARINE H. PARKER United States Magistrate Judge

Caceres v. Commissioner of Social Security, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Caceres v. Commissioner of Social Security (Caceres v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related