Cano v. Saul

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JOSELINE CANO, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-11563-ADB ANDREW SAUL,Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * * Defendant. * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ONPLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTIONFOR ATTORNEYS’FEES BURROUGHS, D.J. Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Joseline Cano’s supplemental motionfor attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),28 U.S.C. §2412(d),inthe amount of $1,303.60,[ECF No. 31], whichDefendant Andrew Saul, the Commissioner of Social Security(the “Commissioner”), opposes. [ECF No. 32]. For the following reasons, Cano’s motion for fees, [ECF No. 31], is GRANTEDin part. I. BACKGROUND On April 15, 2020, theCourt granted in part Cano’s motion to reverse or remandthe Commissioner’s decision to deny her Title II Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. [ECF No. 20]. Canofiledher first motionfor attorneys’ fees pursuant to the EAJA on July 11, 2020,[ECF No. 22], whichthe Court granted in part after reducing her fee request to account for a variety of factors, [ECF No. 30]. Canonow seeks a supplemental fee award to compensate her counsel for time spent preparing her initial fee request. [ECF No. 31]. The Commissioner opposes the motion, arguing first that no fees should be awarded, and second that if she were to be given an additional award, she should not be awarded the full amount she requests because her initial fee request was only partially successful. [ECF No. 32]. II. DISCUSSION The EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . .fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs ...incurred by that party in any civil action ...including

proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In Hensley v. Eckerhart, the Supreme Court held that “[c]ounsel for the prevailing party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. . . .” 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). As the fee applicant, Cano “bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Id. at 437. After the applicant has made his or her case, the district court must review the fee request and exclude hours that were not “reasonably expended.” Id.at 434. There is “no precise rule or formula” for determining fee reductions in this context. Id. at 436. “The district

court may attempt to identify specific hours that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award . . . . The court necessarily has discretion in making this equitable judgment.” Id.at 436–37. Cano has submitted an itemized list of time spent by her three representatives (an attorney, aparalegal, and alaw student) on her initial motion for fees. [ECF No. 31 at 4–10]. Eachrepresentative’s time has been discounted to account for reductions the Court made in its previous Order, which included reducedrates for the paralegal and law student who worked on her case. See[id.; ECF No. 30]. As a result, Cano seeks an award of $1,303.60 for 2.8 hours spent bytheattorney at $207 per hour, 3.2 hours spent bytheparalegal at $95 per hour, and 5.6 hours spent by thelaw student at $75 per hour. [ECFNo. 31 at 2]. As the Commissioner notes, [ECF No. 32], Cano was only partially successful on her initial motionbecause the Court awarded her less than half of what she requested. [ECF No. 30 at 17]. TheCourt reduced her fee request to account for an unreasonable amount of attorney

hours, her partial success on her challenge to the Commissioner’s decision to deny benefits, duplicative entries, and thehighrates requested for the paralegal and law student who worked on her case. [Id. at 4–11,13–16]. While the Court acknowledges that her representatives have reduced thesupplemental request to account for some of these factors, the Court finds that some additional reduction is appropriate. In light of this, the Court will exercise its discretion to reduce the amount of the awardto $1,000.00. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436–37. III. CONCLUSION Accordingly,Cano’s supplemental motion for fees,[ECF No. 31],is GRANTEDin part. The Court awards Canoanadditional fee award of $1,000.00for time spent briefing her initial

EAJA fee request. SO ORDERED. January 8, 2021 /s/ Allison D. Burroughs ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE