Opinion
1:22-cv-663
03-29-2023
ANTHONY JAMES HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
Hon. Robert J. Jonker
SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SALLY J. BERENS U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before me on remand from the Honorable Robert J. Jonker for consideration of Plaintiff's counsel's billing records in determining whether the amount requested in the parties' Stipulation and Proposed Order for Attorney's Fees and Costs Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C § 2412 (ECF No. 14), is reasonable. According to the stipulation, Plaintiff's counsel spent 35.1 hours on the matter (28.8 hours in attorney time and 6.3 hours in paralegal time) for a total of $6,526.60 in fees, although the parties have agreed to an EAJA award of $6,200.00. Having reviewed counsel's billing records, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), I recommend that the Court GRANT the stipulation and award EAJA fees in the amount of $6,200.00.
The sole issue, as set forth in Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 16), is the reasonableness of the number of hours sought. As Plaintiff notes, assessing attorney fees is not a formulaic exercise involving the application of rules or regulations as to how long a particular task should take. Courts are guided by nothing more than the general rule that the hours claimed must be “reasonably expended” on the matter. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). Unsurprisingly, then, “district courts have a great deal of discretion in deciding what constitutes a reasonable fee.” Buchanan v. Colvin, No. 13-133, 2014 WL 11309969, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 14, 2014) (citing United States v. Eleven Vehicles, Their Equip. & Accessories, 200 F.3d 203, 212 (3d Cir. 2000)). This is why, as Plaintiff points out, and as one should expect, courts from other districts in the Sixth Circuit have approved requests for substantially higher hours than Plaintiff seeks here for work done in similar Social Security cases. (ECF No. 16 at PageID.1534.) By the same token, the same is true in the other direction. See, e.g., Hanna v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:21-cv-148 (W.D. Mich. May 10, 2022), ECF No. 24 (order granting motion for EAJA fees for 25 hours of work in fully-litigated case involving 1,291-page administrative record); Yob v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:21-cv-617, 2022 WL 868009, at *2 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 8, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 860666 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 2022) (finding 22.1 hours reasonable in case involving 1,390-page administrative record and stipulated remand); Spiller v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 940 F.Supp.2d 647, 652 (S.D. Ohio 2013) (“Without establishing a firm, bright line rule, the Court surveyed a large number of EAJA fees/costs petitions recently filed in this District, and found the general range of time expended on these cases is 15-25 hours.”). Thus, an amount less than what Plaintiff seeks also could be supported by comparison to similar cases.
In any event, having reviewed the submitted billing records, I conclude that the stipulated amount, which represents a reduction of $326.80, is reasonable. Accordingly I recommend that the Court award Plaintiff $6,200.00 in EAJA fees.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), an order awarding EAJA fees must be entered directing payment to Plaintiff, not counsel. Id. at 591-93; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (the EAJA awards fees “to a prevailing party”); Kerr v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 874 F.3d 926, 934-35 (6th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming that Astrue requires EAJA fees to be paid to the claimant). Therefore, I recommend that the Court order that payment be made directly to Plaintiff.
NOTICE
OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).