Leach v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Erin Michelle Leach, No. CV-19-05593-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access 17 to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 22.) Plaintiff initially requested 18 $11,809.80 in fees. In response, Defendant argues that this amount is unreasonable and 19 also that it impermissibly includes $170 attributable to clerical tasks. (Doc. 25.) In her 20 reply, Plaintiff maintains that the fees are reasonable, but agrees to reduce the requested 21 fees by $170.1 (Doc. 28.) The sole remaining dispute is whether the balance of the fees 22 are reasonable. 23 On this issue, Defendant argues that the Court should discount the attorney’s fees 24 by 22 hours because the work performed by counsel was excessive in light of what he had 25 already performed during the administrative proceedings. In particular, Defendant argues 26 1 In her reply, Plaintiff claims that her initial application sought fees totaling 27 $11,754.96, and that she agrees to reduce that amount by $170 to $11,584.96. (Doc. 28.) But this math is wrong. Plaintiff’s initial application did not seek fees totaling $11,754.96; 28 it sought fees totaling $11,809.80. (Docs. 22, 22-2.) $11,809.90 minus $170 equals $11,639.80. 1|| that Plaintiff's counsel repurposed significant portions of his briefing from the 2|| administrative level and has not adequately explained why the opening brief required so 3 || much additional work to prepare. In response, Plaintiff's counsel explains that the record 4|| in this case was substantial and complex, and that it took time for counsel to refamiliarize 5 || himself with the case because the opening brief was filed roughly fourteen months after he 6|| filed his brief before the agency’s Appeals Council. 7 The Court finds Plaintiff's counsel’s explanation persuasive and finds further 8 || reductions in the fee award unwarranted. Accordingly, 9 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs application for attorney’s fees (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. The EAJA fees shall be paid to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney. Pursuant to the EAJA, Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $11,639.80. || Under Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595-98 (2010), EAJA fees awarded by this Court 13 || belong to Plaintiff and are subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.S.C. § 3716(c)(3)(B). 15 Dated this 16th day of November, 2021. 16 17 18 {Z, 20 Upited States Dictric Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-