The opinion
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Maritza Molina, Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 22-21480-Civ-Scola
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting )
Commissioner of Social Security, )
Defendant. )
Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff Maritza Molina’s
(“Molina”) motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act (“EAJA”). (Mot., ECF No. 32.) Defendant Kilolo Kijakazi1, Commissioner of
the Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”), does not oppose the
Plaintiff’s motion. Molina challenged the denial of her social security benefits,
and the Court subsequently entered an order remanding this case to the
Commissioner to conduct further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 31.)
Accordingly, as the prevailing party, Molina seeks $12,650.98 in attorneys’ fees
and $907.00 in costs. (ECF No. 32.)
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan
Goodman for a ruling on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and for a report
and recommendation on any dispositive matters. (ECF No. 2, 8.) On July 31,
2024, Judge Goodman issued a report, recommending the Court grant in part
the Plaintiff’s motion and award Plaintiff $10,740.62 in attorneys’ fees and
$907.00 in costs, “contingent upon a determination by Defendant that Plaintiff
owes no qualifying preexisting debt(s) to the Government.” (Rep. & Rec. at 9,
ECF No. 33.) Specifically, Judge Goodman recommended the Court reduce
Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees by twenty percent due to impermissible block billing.
(Id. at 6-8.) The Plaintiff filed objections, challenging Judge Goodman’s
determination that the entries constitute block billing and challenging the
twenty percent reduction. (ECF No. 34.)
A district court judge must conduct a de novo review of only “those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636. Where no objections are made, a
1 Plaintiff’s suit was filed against Kilolo Kijakazi, the Acting Commissioner at the time of filing.
Martin J. O’Malley was sworn in as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on
December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Martin J. O’Malley
should be substituted for Kilolo Kijakazi as the suit’s Defendant.
report may be adopted in full without conducting a de novo review, provided no
plain error exists. See id.; Menendez v. Naples Cmty. Hosp. Inc., No. 2:20-CV-
898-SPC-MRM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215317, 2021 WL 5178496, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. Nov. 8, 2021) (collecting cases).
The Court disagrees with Molina that the entries identified by Judge
Goodman are not impermissible block billing. Block billing occurs “when an
attorney lists all the day's tasks on a case in a single entry, without separately
identifying the time spent on each task.” Ceres Env't Servs., Inc. v. Colonel
McCrary Trucking, LLC, 476 F. App'x 198, 203 (11th Cir. 2012). The five entries
Judge Goodman identified as block billing certainly qualify. For example, the
entry dated October 22, 2022, contains the following description: “Drafting of
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law, including
review and notes of 1,767-page transcript, as well as research performed.” (ECF
No. 33 at 6); (ECF No. 32 at 6.) The entry does not identify the time spent
reviewing the transcript, the time spent researching, or the time spent drafting
the motion. The entries from October 23, 2022, October 24, 2022, January 24,
2024, and January 25, 2024, similarly fail to separate out the time spent on
each individual task. (See ECF No. 33 at 6.)
Molina argues, however, that the appeal of a claim for social security
benefits should be treated differently than other cases:
Review of the transcript and note-taking effectively occur
simultaneously while in the process of drafting plaintiffs’ motions
for summary judgment and related briefing. Not only would it be
overly burdensome to start and stop a timer every time counsel
switched between reading the transcript and taking notes on the
transcript, but such an approach is incredibly inefficient and
effectively impossible to adopt without adding to the time it would
take to perform these activities. Notes on the transcript are then
gradually incorporated and built into the drafting of the motion for
summary judgment and related briefing. Research is also
effectively performed simultaneously, pulling from prior briefing on
similar issues to incorporate into the drafting the motion for
summary judgment and related briefing, which also serves to
bolster efficiency.
(ECF No. 34 at 5.) The inherent connection between reviewing, researching,
and drafting exists not just in social security appeals, but in every type of case.
That does not relieve timekeepers of their burden of “establishing entitlement to
an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates”
and “maintain[ing] billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing
court to identify distinct claims.” Ceres Env't Servs., 476 F. App'x at 203-04
(quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d
40 (1983)).
Nevertheless, the Court agrees with Molina that, even if the entries
constitute impermissible block billing, a twenty-percent reduction is excessive.
(See ECF No. 34.) The block billing in this matter is far less egregious than
other cases where courts imposed a ten to twenty-percent reduction. For
example, when an attorney used incredibly vague language in billing entries,
such as “working with [John Doe]” and “continuing work on case”, the court
determined a ten-percent reduction suffices. Ceres Env't Servs., 476 F. App'x at
203-04. Similarly, when attorneys grouped entirely unrelated tasks together in
single entries, courts have imposed a twenty-percent reduction. Lil' Joe Wein
Music, Inc. v. Jackson, No. 06-20079-CIV, 2008 WL 2688117, at *12 (S.D. Fla.
July 1, 2008) (Huck, J.) (imposing a twenty-percent reduction when attorneys
repeatedly billed eight or more unrelated tasks into one entry2); Hiscox
Dedicated Corp. Member, Ltd. v. Matrix Grp. Ltd., Inc., No. 8:09-CV-2465-T-
33AEP, 2012 WL 2226441, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 15, 2012) (imposing a twenty-
percent reduction when “not a single page exists without a block billed entry
among the hundreds of pages of timesheets”).
Here, the problematic time entries are not as vague as “working with
[John Doe]” and “continuing work on case”. See Ceres Env't Servs., 476 F.
App'x at 203-04. Nor do they group entirely unrelated tasks in one entry. See
Lil' Joe Wein Music, 2008 WL 2688117, at *12; Hiscox Dedicated Corp. Member,
2012 WL 2226441, at *5. Instead, they incorporate reviewing, researching and
writing for the same filing into one entry. (ECF No. 33 at 6); (ECF No. 32 at 6.)
Although the Court is unable to decipher how much time the lawyer spent
researching, how much time the lawyer spent reviewing the transcript, and
how much time the lawyer spent drafting, such tasks do possess an inherent
connection. Therefore, while the five entries identified by Judge Goodman do
constitute impermissible block billing (see ECF No. 33 at 6), a five-percent
reduction across the board suffices to offset the harm of block billing.
The Court thus adopts in part Judge Goodman’s report and
recommendations (ECF No. 33), and grants in part the Plaintiff’s unopposed
2 For example, one entry included all the following tasks: “reviewing and revising motion in
limine re McBowman; emails to attorney Stetson regarding same; conference with attorney
Stetson regarding same; meeting with Wunderlich and attorney Frackman regarding expert
report; review and analyze same; emails to Geller, Miller and attorney Stetson regarding same;
email to Wolfe regarding same; review and analyze supplemental opposition to summary
judgment motion; emails to Geller, Miller, and attorneys Frackman, Stetson, Frank and
paralegal regarding same; draft reply; legal research regarding same; conferences with attorney
Frackman regarding same.” Lil' Joe Wein Music, 2008 WL 2688117, at *12.
motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. (ECF No. 32.) The Court awards Plaintiff
$12,018.43 in attorneys’ fees? and $907.00 in costs, contingent upon a
determination by Defendant that Plaintiff owes no qualifying preexisting debt(s)
to the Government. Finally, the Court directs the Clerk to close this case. All
pending motions are denied as moot.
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on October 15, 2024.
dobert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
3 $12,650.98 x .05 = $632.55. $12,650.98 - $632.55 = $12,018.43.