Catherine Michelle Garrett v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CATHERINE MICHELLE GARRETT,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:22-cv-241-CEM-LHP

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Petition for Award of Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Doc. No. 36. The Commissioner does not oppose the motion. Id. at 6. Upon referral, the Court requires further information from Plaintiff in order to resolve the motion. Specifically, Plaintiff is represented by one attorney in this case, Erik William Berger, Esq. Doc. No. 1. According to the motion under review, Plaintiff states that counsel’s law firm spent 40.9 hours on this case in 2022 and 2025, to include 5.7 hours expended by paralegals and 35.2 hours by attorneys. See Doc. No. 36-1. The listed hours, however, do not include any work by Attorney Berger, and instead, they include only the work performed by a Karl Osterhout and Lindsey Sbrolla, who did not appear in this case pro hac vice or otherwise. Id. at 2–3. While the document lists Mr. Osterhout as a partner and Ms. Sbrolla as an associate,

Plaintiff otherwise provides no information on these attorneys. Id. at 3. Upon independent review, it also does not appear that either attorney is admitted to practice before this Court, nor that either is a member of the Florida Bar.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file supplemental briefing in support of this motion, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length, addressing the issues set forth herein, including why the work of Mr. Osterhout and Ms. Sbrolla is recoverable at the requested rates,

or alternatively, why these attorneys should not be compensated at the applicable paralegal rate. See, e.g., Martin v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:17-cv-1974-Orl-KRS, 2018 WL 8578026, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2018) (“[A]ttorneys who are not members

of the Bar of this Court and have not sought or been granted pro hac vice admission should be compensated at the paralegal rate.”); Cossette v. Kijakazi, No. 5:20-cv-537- JRK, 2022 WL 8186658, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2022) (compensating non-admitted

attorney at paralegal rate of $125.00 per hour); see also Callaway v. Acting Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 802 F. App’x 533, 537 (11th Cir. 2020); Zech v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 680 F. App’x 858 (11th Cir. 2017); Zabala v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:17-cv-628-Orl-TBS, 2018 WL 6589837, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 14, 2018); Duffield v. Colvin, No. 3:15-cv-1065-

J-MCR, 2016 WL 6037306, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2016); Bumgardner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:12-cv-18-Orl-31TBS, 2014 WL 5426538, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2014); Riggins v. Astrue, No. 3:09-cv-856-J-TEM, 2011 WL 2119338, at *2-3 (M.D. Fla. May 27,2011). DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 10, 2025.

LESLIE AN PRICE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record