Monroe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

Monroe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedMarch 27, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-02571-JAT

StatusUnknown

This text of Monroe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration (Monroe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monroe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Dennis M Monroe, No. CV-18-02571-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dennis M. Monroe’s Application for Attorney 16 Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 23) (“Motion”). The Motion (Doc. 23) 17 is timely and unopposed. The Court now rules on the Motion (Doc. 23). 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff appealed the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying disability 20 insurance benefits. (Doc. 1; Doc. 15). The Court found reversible error and remanded. 21 (Doc. 21 at 15–16). 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 A prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees under the Equal Access to 24 Justice Act (EAJA) unless the government’s position “was substantially justified” or 25 “special circumstances make an award unjust.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Gutierrez 26 v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). The government bears the burden of 27 showing that its position was substantially justified. Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1258. The 28 government fails to meet that burden when it does not timely respond to a request for fees 1 under the EAJA. Gwaduri v. I.N.S., 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2004). Alternatively, the 2 government’s failure to timely respond can be treated as a concession that its opposition 3 was not substantially justified. Id. 4 III. ENTITLEMENT TO FEES UNDER EAJA 5 Plaintiff is the prevailing party because the Court reversed the ALJ’s determination 6 denying benefits and remanded the case for redetermination. See Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 7 1257. The Court finds that no special circumstances would render an award unjust. Thus, 8 the Court must determine if the government’s opposition to the appeal was substantially 9 justified. 10 The government did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 23). Consequently, 11 either the government has conceded that its opposition to Plaintiff’s appeal of the ALJ’s 12 decision was not substantially justified or the Court finds that the government did not meet 13 its burden of showing the same. Either way, the Motion (Doc. 23) will be granted as a result 14 of the government’s failure to respond. 15 IV. REASONABLENESS OF THE REQUEST 16 Once the Court has found entitlement to fees under the EAJA, the Court must review 17 the fees request to ensure that the amount of fees requested is reasonable. Indeed, the Court 18 “has an independent obligation to ensure that the request is reasonable.” Antunez v. Comm’r 19 of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-16-01072-PHX-JAT, 2017 WL 4075830, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20 13, 2017) (citations omitted). 21 Plaintiff requests $6,742.14 for 32.9 hours of attorney work and $85.00 for 1.7 hours 22 of paralegal work for a total award of $6,827.14. (See Doc. 23 at 1–2; Doc. 23-1 at 5–6). 23 Courts within the Ninth Circuit have recognized that a range of twenty to forty hours is a 24 reasonable amount of time to spend on a social security disability case that is not 25 particularly difficult. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 26 2012); Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 & n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (collecting 27 cases). Here, Plaintiff’s requested hours fall within that spectrum. The Court has also 28 reviewed the itemized statement of fees filed by Plaintiff, (Doc. 23-1 at 5–6), and the Court finds that the amount of time recorded for each task listed is reasonable. Finally, a 2|| prevailing party may recover fees for paralegal services so long as the fees are at prevailing market rates. Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 590 (2008). The Court finds 4|| that the paralegal fees charged here are at prevailing market rates. See Owens v. Comm’r □□ of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-16-00970-PHX-JAT, 2017 WL 3172868, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6|| 26, 2017). Accordingly, the Court finds that $6,827.14 in fees is reasonable, and thus, the 7\| Court will award Plaintiff that amount. 8} V. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, 10 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal 11 || Access to Justice Act (Doc. 23) is GRANTED in the amount of $6,827.14. This award shall be payable directly to Plaintiff and is subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt || that Plaintiff owes the United States pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). 14 Dated this 27th day of March, 2020. 15 16 i C 17 James A. Teilborg 18 Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Dennis M Monroe, No. CV-18-02571-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 14 Defendant. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Dennis M. Monroe’s Application for Attorney 16 Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 23) (“Motion”). The Motion (Doc. 23) 17 is timely and unopposed. The Court now rules on the Motion (Doc. 23). 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff appealed the Social Security Commissioner’s decision denying disability 20 insurance benefits. (Doc. 1; Doc. 15). The Court found reversible error and remanded. 21 (Doc. 21 at 15–16). 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 A prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees under the Equal Access to 24 Justice Act (EAJA) unless the government’s position “was substantially justified” or 25 “special circumstances make an award unjust.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Gutierrez 26 v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). The government bears the burden of 27 showing that its position was substantially justified. Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1258. The 28 government fails to meet that burden when it does not timely respond to a request for fees 1 under the EAJA. Gwaduri v. I.N.S., 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2004). Alternatively, the 2 government’s failure to timely respond can be treated as a concession that its opposition 3 was not substantially justified. Id. 4 III. ENTITLEMENT TO FEES UNDER EAJA 5 Plaintiff is the prevailing party because the Court reversed the ALJ’s determination 6 denying benefits and remanded the case for redetermination. See Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 7 1257. The Court finds that no special circumstances would render an award unjust. Thus, 8 the Court must determine if the government’s opposition to the appeal was substantially 9 justified. 10 The government did not respond to Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 23). Consequently, 11 either the government has conceded that its opposition to Plaintiff’s appeal of the ALJ’s 12 decision was not substantially justified or the Court finds that the government did not meet 13 its burden of showing the same. Either way, the Motion (Doc. 23) will be granted as a result 14 of the government’s failure to respond. 15 IV. REASONABLENESS OF THE REQUEST 16 Once the Court has found entitlement to fees under the EAJA, the Court must review 17 the fees request to ensure that the amount of fees requested is reasonable. Indeed, the Court 18 “has an independent obligation to ensure that the request is reasonable.” Antunez v. Comm’r 19 of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-16-01072-PHX-JAT, 2017 WL 4075830, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 20 13, 2017) (citations omitted). 21 Plaintiff requests $6,742.14 for 32.9 hours of attorney work and $85.00 for 1.7 hours 22 of paralegal work for a total award of $6,827.14. (See Doc. 23 at 1–2; Doc. 23-1 at 5–6). 23 Courts within the Ninth Circuit have recognized that a range of twenty to forty hours is a 24 reasonable amount of time to spend on a social security disability case that is not 25 particularly difficult. See Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 26 2012); Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 & n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (collecting 27 cases). Here, Plaintiff’s requested hours fall within that spectrum. The Court has also 28 reviewed the itemized statement of fees filed by Plaintiff, (Doc. 23-1 at 5–6), and the Court finds that the amount of time recorded for each task listed is reasonable. Finally, a 2|| prevailing party may recover fees for paralegal services so long as the fees are at prevailing market rates. Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 590 (2008). The Court finds 4|| that the paralegal fees charged here are at prevailing market rates. See Owens v. Comm’r □□ of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-16-00970-PHX-JAT, 2017 WL 3172868, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6|| 26, 2017). Accordingly, the Court finds that $6,827.14 in fees is reasonable, and thus, the 7\| Court will award Plaintiff that amount. 8} V. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing, 10 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal 11 || Access to Justice Act (Doc. 23) is GRANTED in the amount of $6,827.14. This award shall be payable directly to Plaintiff and is subject to offset to satisfy any pre-existing debt || that Plaintiff owes the United States pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). 14 Dated this 27th day of March, 2020. 15 16 i C 17 James A. Teilborg 18 Senior United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Monroe v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack