Ross v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

D. South Carolina

Ross v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

District Court, D. South Carolina·Decided January 11, 2021·No. 4:19-cv-00339·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Dawn Ross, ) Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00339-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Andrew M. Saul, ) Commissioner of ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Dawn Ross’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,095.00 and expenses in the amount of $20.85. (Id.) Defendant filed a Response and does not oppose an award of $4,095.00 in attorney’s fees and $20.85 in expenses. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) The EAJA provides that a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in certain civil actions against the United States unless it finds that the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). A district court is accorded “substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award” but is charged with the duty to ensure that the final award is reasonable. Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990)). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 24), Counsel’s Supporting Brief (ECF 24-1), Plaintiff’s Fee Agreement (ECF No. 24-2), and Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 25), the court finds that Counsel’s request for attorney’s fees is reasonable. Counsel successfully represented Plaintiff before the court, there is no evidence of substandard attorney services, and the amount of the award is not extraordinarily large in comparison to the amount of time Counsel spent on the case. (See ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24, 24-1, 24-2.) In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this court belong to the litigant and are subject to the Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.S.C. § 3716 (2006). Therefore, the court directs that the fees be payable to Plaintiff and delivered to Counsel. The amount of attorney’s fees payable to Counsel will be the balance of attorney’s fees remaining after subtracting the amount of Plaintiff's outstanding federal debt. See 31 U.S.C. § 3716. If Plaintiff's outstanding federal debt exceeds the amount of attorney’s fees, the amount of attorney’s fees will be used to offset Plaintiffs federal debt and no attorney’s fees shall be paid. (ECF No. 25 at 2.) The court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 24) and awards Plaintiff $4,095.00 in attorney’s fees and $20.85 in expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED.

t Wecfalla. CRbda United States District Judge January 11, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Dawn Ross, ) Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-00339-JMC ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Andrew M. Saul, ) Commissioner of ) Social Security Administration, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Dawn Ross’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff’s counsel (“Counsel”) seeks an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,095.00 and expenses in the amount of $20.85. (Id.) Defendant filed a Response and does not oppose an award of $4,095.00 in attorney’s fees and $20.85 in expenses. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) The EAJA provides that a court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in certain civil actions against the United States unless it finds that the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). A district court is accorded “substantial discretion in fixing the amount of an EAJA award” but is charged with the duty to ensure that the final award is reasonable. Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239, 254 (4th Cir. 2002) (citing INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990)). After reviewing Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 24), Counsel’s Supporting Brief (ECF 24-1), Plaintiff’s Fee Agreement (ECF No. 24-2), and Defendant’s Response (ECF No. 25), the court finds that Counsel’s request for attorney’s fees is reasonable. Counsel successfully represented Plaintiff before the court, there is no evidence of substandard attorney services, and the amount of the award is not extraordinarily large in comparison to the amount of time Counsel spent on the case. (See ECF Nos. 22, 23, 24, 24-1, 24-2.) In accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this court belong to the litigant and are subject to the Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.S.C. § 3716 (2006). Therefore, the court directs that the fees be payable to Plaintiff and delivered to Counsel. The amount of attorney’s fees payable to Counsel will be the balance of attorney’s fees remaining after subtracting the amount of Plaintiff's outstanding federal debt. See 31 U.S.C. § 3716. If Plaintiff's outstanding federal debt exceeds the amount of attorney’s fees, the amount of attorney’s fees will be used to offset Plaintiffs federal debt and no attorney’s fees shall be paid. (ECF No. 25 at 2.) The court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees (ECF No. 24) and awards Plaintiff $4,095.00 in attorney’s fees and $20.85 in expenses. IT IS SO ORDERED.

t Wecfalla. CRbda United States District Judge January 11, 2021 Columbia, South Carolina

Ross v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, (D.S.C. 2021).

Pincite

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

Opinion

Related