The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DEMETRICE DENICE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 6:24-cv-1769-SJH
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for
Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”). Doc. 27. For the reasons herein, the Motion is due to be
granted.
Petitioner, Richard A. Culbertson, and Sarah P. Jacobs, attorneys for Plaintiff,
successfully represented Plaintiff in this appeal of an adverse decision by the Social
Security Administration. See Docs. 24-25. The case came before this Court and was
reversed and remanded. Id. Mr. Culbertson requests $3,627.69 in attorney’s fees for
his and Ms. Jacobs’s representation of Plaintiff pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice
Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Doc. 27 at 1-3, 5, 7, 10. Defendant does not object
to the amount of attorney’s fees requested. Id. at 3.
Under EAJA, unless otherwise provided by statute, a court must “award to a
prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses … incurred by
that party in any civil action … brought by or against the United States … unless the
court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that
special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). EAJA also
limits individuals eligible to recover fees to those “whose net worth did not exceed
$2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B).
Plaintiff, having obtained a sentence-four reversal of a denial of benefits and
remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is a “prevailing party.” See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509
U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993). In light of the lack of opposition to the Motion, the Court will
not find that Defendant’s position was substantially justified. See Andersen v. Kijakazi,
No. 8:22-cv-630-AAS, 2023 WL 269567, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 18, 2023); Bennett v.
Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 3:19-cv-1158-MCR, 2021 WL 9772226, at *1 (M.D.
Fla. June 29, 2021). Further, there are no special circumstances that make the award
unjust. In addition, the Motion represents that Plaintiff’s net worth when this
proceeding was filed was less than $2 million, Doc. 27 at 2, which is also shown by
the affidavit filed by Plaintiff with his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 2;
see also Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:19-cv-1096-J-PDB, 2020 WL 3440659, at *1
(M.D. Fla. June 23, 2020). Thus, an award of attorney’s fees under EAJA is
appropriate.
Regarding the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded, EAJA requires that the
fees be “reasonable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). The amount of attorney’s fees “shall
be based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services
furnished” and “shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court
determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited
availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.”
Id.
The Motion states that Mr. Culbertson worked 0.9 hours in 2024 at a rate of
$251.82 per hour and 0.1 hours in 2025 at a rate of $255.97 per hour, and Ms. Jacobs
worked 0.8 hours in 2024 at a rate of $251.82 per hour and 12.4 hours in 2025 at a rate
of $255.97 per hour; the Motion in turn seeks fees totaling $3,627.69. Doc. 27 at 2, 7,
11-12. Considering the lack of opposition, the Court finds these hourly rates
reasonable, and the cost-of-living adjustment warranted.1 See Bennett, 2021 WL
9772226, at *1. The Court also finds reasonable the number of hours spent by
Plaintiff’s counsel on the case. Thus, the Court finds that $3,627.69 is a reasonable
amount for attorney’s fees in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Motion (Doc. 27) is granted.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against
Defendant in the amount of $3,627.69.
3. The Commissioner will determine whether Plaintiff owes a debt to the
government. If the United States Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff
does not owe such a debt, the government will accept Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA
fees and costs and pay the fees and costs directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.
1 If the hourly rates were contested, the Court’s determination as to the reasonableness
of the rates might be different.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 30, 2025.
[Z J. Horovitz
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to:
Counsel of Record