From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Genao v. Apfel

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Dec 17, 1999
Civil Action No. 98-4372 (NHP) (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 1999)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 98-4372 (NHP)

December 17, 1999

James Langton, Esq., Abraham S. Alter, Esq., LANGTON ALTER, for Plaintiff.

Anthony J. LaBruna, Assistant United States Attorney ROBERT J. CLEARY, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, for Defendant.



THE ORIGINAL OF THIS FINAL LETTER ORDER IS ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT


Dear Counsel:

This matter comes before the Court on the motion by plaintiff Maxima Genao for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). This matter was decided without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff Maxima Genao's motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Accordingly, this case is CLOSED.

DISCUSSION

On October 14, 1998, plaintiff Maxima Genao (hereinafter "plaintiff") filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that she was wrongfully denied social security benefits. Thereafter, plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security entered into a Consent Order to reverse and remand this case to the Secretary. On September 7, 1999, this Judge signed the Consent Order.

Plaintiff now moves before this Court for a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Specifically, plaintiff seeks $7,681.25 for fees charged by her attorneys, James Langton and Abraham Alter. The amount sought by plaintiff computes as follows: $125.00 per hour times 60.25 hours plus $150.00 filing fee. The United States Government on behalf of the Commissioner of Social Security does not oppose an award of attorney's fees but does object to the number of hours expended in connection with this otherwise routine case.

A district court has broad discretion in awarding attorney's fees "so long as it `employs correct standards and procedures and makes findings of fact [which are] not clearly erroneous.'" Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Canon-McMillan School District, 152 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing Public Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179, 1184 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Northeast Women's Center v. McMonagle, 889 F.2d 466, 475 (3d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1068 (1990))). See also Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991). In evaluating the proper amount of attorney's fees to award in certain cases, the Third Circuit most recently has been guided by the standards and procedures articulated in two United States Supreme Court cases, Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546 (1986). Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Canon-McMillan School District, 152 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 1998). In both cases, the Supreme Court adopted the "lodestar" formula, which requires multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate. See id.

These standards also apply in all types of non-civil rights cases involving attorney's fees.

The first step in applying the lodestar formula is to determine the appropriate hourly rate. In determining the appropriate hourly rate, the court should first consider the attorney's usual billing rate. See id. (citing Public Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179, 1185 (3d Cir. 1995)). The Supreme Court has indicated that the district court can also consider the "prevailing market rates" in the relevant community to assist in the determination of an appropriate hourly rate. See id. (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)).

In this matter, Mr. Langton has indicated in his Affidavit of Attorney's Services that his hourly rate is $125.00. The United States Government, on behalf of the Commissioner of Social Security, does not object to Mr. Langton's hourly rate. Upon review of the hourly rate charged and in light of the relative market rates, this Court does not find that the hourly rate submitted is excessive.

In calculating the second part of the lodestar formula, the time reasonably expended, "[the district court should review the time charged, decide whether the hours set out were reasonably expended for each of the particular purposes described and then exclude those that are `excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.'" Id. (citing Public Interest Research Group of N.J., Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179, 1188 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. 433-34))). Time expended is considered "reasonable" if the work performed was "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to secure the final result obtained from the litigation." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 560-61 (1986).

In this matter, Mr. Langton, an attorney well-versed in the law of social security, contends that he has spent 60.25 hours on this case. The United States Government on behalf of the Commissioner of Social Security asserts that 60.25 is excessive. The Court has reviewed Mr. Langton's Affidavit of Services and agrees with the United States that some of the time spent by Mr. Langton in connection with this case is quite excessive and, in some instances, repetitive. For example, this Court finds that spending 12.25 hours to receive and review the defendant's Answer and a copy of the hearing transcript is excessive in light of the actual length and substance of the transcript. Additionally, Mr. Langton contends that he spent 13.75 hours to review the testimony portion of the transcript, to perform Rule 48 research and to prepare a rough draft of plaintiff's brief. Incidentally, a review of the Affidavit reveals that much of this is repetitive and is not worthy of an additional charge to the client. Finally, 9.75 hours to review and draft a final draft of plaintiff's brief is also excessive in light of the fact that many of Mr. Langton's briefs oftentimes resemble one another.

In light of the foregoing, this Court will reduce Mr. Langton and Mr. Alter's request by 12 hours. Accordingly, plaintiff Maxima Genao's motion for attorney's fees in GRANTED insofar as Mr. Langton and Mr. Alter are entitled to recover attorney's fees in the amount of $6181.25 ($125.00 per hour times 48.25 hours plus $150.00 filing fee). Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees is DENIED with respect to the remainder of the amount requested.

SO ORDERED:


Summaries of

Genao v. Apfel

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Dec 17, 1999
Civil Action No. 98-4372 (NHP) (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 1999)
Case details for

Genao v. Apfel

Case Details

Full title:Maxima Genao v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Dec 17, 1999

Citations

Civil Action No. 98-4372 (NHP) (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 1999)