Ryan v. Kijakazi

W.D. Missouri

Ryan v. Kijakazi

DecidedMarch 30, 2023

Docket2:22-cv-04063

StatusUnknown

This text of Ryan v. Kijakazi (Ryan v. Kijakazi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ryan v. Kijakazi, (W.D. Mo. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

SCOTT RYAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-04063-MDH ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 11). This Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Remand in December 2022, ordering a new administrative hearing regarding social security benefits. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s Motion seeks $3,102.00 in attorney’s fees and reimbursement for the $402 filing fee. Defendant agrees this amount is reasonable and objects to neither the award of attorney’s fees nor the reimbursement of the filing fee. (Doc. 13).1 The EAJA creates a right to attorney’s fees in civil actions against the government. The EAJA statute provides legal fees may be allowed only for an adversary action, such as a social security claim in district court. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Clifton v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1985). In determining whether the attorney’s fees requested by a qualified Plaintiff are “reasonable,” Section 2412(d)(2)(A) of the EAJA specifies a statutory cap of $125.00 per hour, which should be adjusted for increases in the cost of living. The Eighth Circuit has held that the Consumer Price Index constitutes appropriate proof of the cost-of-living increase since the original enactment of the EAJA, and justifies an award higher than the statutory rate. Stanfield v. Apfel,

1 Defendant’s response brief lists attorney’s fees in the amounts of $3,102 and $5,500. Plaintiff, however, requests fees only in the amount of $3,102. 985 F. Supp. 927, 930-931 (E.D. Mo. 1997) (decision approving as “reasonable” in 1997 an hourly rate of $128.36 per hour) citing Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990). Further, in determining the reasonableness of the hours claimed in Plaintiff’s request, the Court must rely upon its own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required

completing similar activities by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Shepherd v. Apfel, 981 F. Supp. 1188, 1192 (S.D. Iowa 1997) citing Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, Arkansas, 867 F.2d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 1989). Defendant has no objection to Plaintiff’s requests for attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,102.00, representing 13.20 total hours of attorney work. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $3,102.00 to be paid by the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff is also awarded $402.00 to be paid by the Judgment Fund administered by the United States Treasury. Plaintiff has signed an Assignment of EAJA Fees in this case. (Doc. 11-3). The award is to be made payable to Parmele Law Firm. The Court acknowledges that, in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010),

the EAJA fee is payable to Plaintiff as the litigant and may be offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes to the United States.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2023 /s/ Douglas Harpool______ DOUGLAS HARPOOL United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION

SCOTT RYAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:22-cv-04063-MDH ) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 11). This Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Remand in December 2022, ordering a new administrative hearing regarding social security benefits. (Doc. 9). Plaintiff’s Motion seeks $3,102.00 in attorney’s fees and reimbursement for the $402 filing fee. Defendant agrees this amount is reasonable and objects to neither the award of attorney’s fees nor the reimbursement of the filing fee. (Doc. 13).1 The EAJA creates a right to attorney’s fees in civil actions against the government. The EAJA statute provides legal fees may be allowed only for an adversary action, such as a social security claim in district court. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1); Clifton v. Heckler, 755 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1985). In determining whether the attorney’s fees requested by a qualified Plaintiff are “reasonable,” Section 2412(d)(2)(A) of the EAJA specifies a statutory cap of $125.00 per hour, which should be adjusted for increases in the cost of living. The Eighth Circuit has held that the Consumer Price Index constitutes appropriate proof of the cost-of-living increase since the original enactment of the EAJA, and justifies an award higher than the statutory rate. Stanfield v. Apfel,

1 Defendant’s response brief lists attorney’s fees in the amounts of $3,102 and $5,500. Plaintiff, however, requests fees only in the amount of $3,102. 985 F. Supp. 927, 930-931 (E.D. Mo. 1997) (decision approving as “reasonable” in 1997 an hourly rate of $128.36 per hour) citing Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990). Further, in determining the reasonableness of the hours claimed in Plaintiff’s request, the Court must rely upon its own knowledge, experience, and expertise of the time required

completing similar activities by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Shepherd v. Apfel, 981 F. Supp. 1188, 1192 (S.D. Iowa 1997) citing Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, Arkansas, 867 F.2d 1063, 1066 (8th Cir. 1989). Defendant has no objection to Plaintiff’s requests for attorney’s fees in the amount of $3,102.00, representing 13.20 total hours of attorney work. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $3,102.00 to be paid by the Social Security Administration. Plaintiff is also awarded $402.00 to be paid by the Judgment Fund administered by the United States Treasury. Plaintiff has signed an Assignment of EAJA Fees in this case. (Doc. 11-3). The award is to be made payable to Parmele Law Firm. The Court acknowledges that, in accordance with Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010),

the EAJA fee is payable to Plaintiff as the litigant and may be offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes to the United States.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2023 /s/ Douglas Harpool______ DOUGLAS HARPOOL United States District Judge

48 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1609, 49 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,654 Johnnie Gilbert, Horace Walters, Andrew Lockhart, and Billy O'donald, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. The City of Little Rock, Arkansas the Civil Service Commission of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Walter E. "Sonny" Simpson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas and Carlton E. McMullin Individually and in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, Appellees/cross-Appellants. Julius Bryant, Jack Matlock, Mixie Alexander, Jesse Briscoe, Grady Anthony, Marcella Wilson, and Larry Bazzelle, Intervenors-Below

867 F.2d 1063 (Eighth Circuit, 1989)

Shepherd v. Apfel

981 F. Supp. 1188 (S.D. Iowa, 1997)

Clifton v. Heckler

755 F.2d 1138 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)

Johnson v. Sullivan

919 F.2d 503 (Eighth Circuit, 1990)

Stanfield v. Apfel

985 F. Supp. 927 (E.D. Missouri, 1997)