The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JESHA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:20-cv-1922-NPM
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 26).
Plaintiff Jesha Brown’s attorney requests the Court award attorney’s fees pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $3,733.50.
(Doc. 26, pp. 1-3). Plaintiff represents the Commissioner of Social Security does not
object to the relief sought (Doc. 26, p. 6). For the reasons below, the motion is
granted.
On July 22, 2021, the Commissioner sought remand as follows: “Upon
remand, the Commissioner will further consider the medical evidence, offer the
Plaintiff an opportunity for a new hearing, take any other administration action
deemed necessary, and issue a new decision.” (Doc. 22). The Court granted the
motion. And pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the Court reversed the
decision of the Commissioner and remanded the case. (Doc. 24). Final judgment was
entered on July 26, 2021. (Doc. 25). Now, Plaintiff requests an award of $3,733.50.
(Doc. 26, pp. 1-3).
In order for Plaintiff to receive an award of fees under EAJA, the following
five conditions must be established: (1) Plaintiff must file a timely application for
attorney’s fees; (2) Plaintiff’s net worth must have been less than $2 million dollars
at the time the Complaint was filed; (3) Plaintiff must be the prevailing party in a
non-tort suit involving the United States; (4) the position of the United States must
not have been substantially justified; and (5) there must be no special circumstances
that would make the award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d); Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496
U.S. 154, 158 (1990). Upon consideration and with no opposition by the
Commissioner on eligibility grounds, the Court finds all conditions of EAJA have
been met.
EAJA fees are determined under the “lodestar” method by determining the
number of hours reasonably expended on the matter multiplied by a reasonable
hourly rate. Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759, 773 (11th Cir. 1988). The resulting fee
carries a strong presumption that it is a reasonable fee. City of Burlington v. Daque,
505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992). After review of the services provided, the Court finds 17.9
hours expended by attorney Michael A. Steinberg are reasonable. (Doc. 26-1).
EAJA fees are “based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of
services furnished,” not to exceed $125 per hour unless the Court determines an
increase in the cost of living, or a special factor justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2412(d)(2)(A). Thus, determination of the appropriate hourly rate is a two-step
process. The Court first determines the prevailing market rate; then, if the prevailing
rate exceeds $125.00, the Court determines whether to adjust the hourly rate. Meyer
v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1029, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1992). The prevailing market rates
must be determined according to rates customarily charged for similarly complex
litigation and are not limited to rates specifically for social security cases. Watford
v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff requests hourly rates of
$207.50 for 2020, and $208.75 for 2021, which are unchallenged by the
Commissioner. (Doc. 26, p. 3). The Court finds the hourly rate may be adjusted to
the reasonable requested hourly rates.
Plaintiff filed an Assignment of EAJA Fees, signed by both Plaintiff and
attorney Steinberg. (Doc. 26-2). The Assignment provides: “If a court orders the
government to pay me attorney fees I assign the fees to be paid to you directly.”
(Doc. 26-2). Thus, the fees awarded should be paid directly to counsel if the United
States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed by Plaintiff.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED the Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 26) is
GRANTED, and the Court awards $3,733.50 in attorney’s fees. These fees may be
paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel if the United States Department of Treasury
determines that no federal debt is owed by Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court is directed
to enter an amended judgment.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 21, 2021.
Lielabe E Aiae
NICHOLAS P. MIZEL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE