Opinion
21-CV-2030 (KMK)
10-06-2023
SANDRA JIMENEZ, on behalf of D.S.J., a minor, Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant.
James M. Baker New York, NY Counsel for Plaintiff Kristina Danielle Cohn Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel New York, NY Counsel for Defendant Amanda Frances Parsels Office of the U.S. Attorney New York, NY Counsel for Defendant
James M. Baker New York, NY Counsel for Plaintiff
Kristina Danielle Cohn Social Security Administration Office of the General Counsel New York, NY Counsel for Defendant
Amanda Frances Parsels Office of the U.S. Attorney New York, NY Counsel for Defendant
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Sandra Jimenez (“Plaintiff”) brought this Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner” or “Defendant”), which denied her son's application for child Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). (Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2412. (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 43).)
On February 14, 2019, Ms. Jimenez filed a claim for SSI on behalf of her son, D.S.J. (R. 11 (Dkt. No. 15).) After her claim was administratively denied, (R. 11, 73-76), Plaintiff requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), (R. 82-88), and on May 27, 2020, ALJ Mark Solomon held a telephonic hearing, (R. 11). ALJ Solomon issued a decision finding that D.S.J. was not disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act on June 19, 2020. (R. 11-21.) Plaintiff subsequently submitted a request for review of that decision with the SSA's Appeals Council, which request was denied on December 11, 2020. (R. 1-5.)
Plaintiff commenced this Action pro se on February 9, 2021. (See Compl.) The case was referred to the Honorable Andrew E. Krause. (See Order (Dkt. No. 13).) Pursuant to a court order, (see Order (Dkt. No. 3)), the Commissioner filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 23, 2021, (Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 21)). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings on May 23, 2022. (Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 33).) On August 18, 2022, Judge Krause issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Plaintiff's Motion be granted in part and denied in part, Defendant's Motion be denied, that the case be remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff. (See R&R (Dkt. No. 40).) This Court adopted that R&R in full, (Order (Dkt. No. 41)), and judgment subsequently was entered in favor of Plaintiff on September 7, 2022, (Judgment (Dkt. No. 42)).
James M. Baker appeared on Plaintiff's behalf on March 28, 2022. (Not. of Appearance (Dkt. No. 28).)
Plaintiff now seeks attorney's fees and expenses in the amount of $13,087.00 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2412. On November 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Attorney's Fees. (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 43); Aff'n of James M. Baker, Esq. (Dkt. No. 44); Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Atty's Fees (Dkt. No. 45).) The Commissioner filed her opposition on January 23, 2023. (Def.'s Mem of Law in Opp'n to Mot. for Atty's Fees (Dkt. No. 50).) On February 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed a reply and an additional affirmation in support. (See Pl.'s Reply Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Atty's Fees (Dkt. No. 51); Reply Aff'n of James M. Baker, Esq. (Dkt. No. 52).)
On May 31, 2023, Judge Krause issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“Fees R&R”) recommending that the Court grant the instant Motion. (See Fees R&R 9 (Dkt. No. 54).) The Parties did not file any objections to the Fees R&R. (See generally Dkt.)
The instant Motion was also referred to Judge Krause. (See Order (Dkt. No. 53).)
Judge Krause provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, objections to the Fees R&R were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy. (Fees R&R 9.)
When no objections are filed, the Court reviews a report and recommendation for clear error. See Brito v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 19-CV-10631, 2022 WL 1002698, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022); Bickram v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-1160, 2021 WL 2665876, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2021); Muniz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 18-CV-8295, 2021 WL 293381, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2021); Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F.Supp.2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Court has reviewed the Fees R&R and Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees, and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the Fees R&R.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Fees R&R, dated May 31, 2023, is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.
ORDERED that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff s counsel James M. Baker, Esq. the sum of $13,087.00.
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Coiul is respectfully directed to terminate the pending motion, (Dkt. No. 43).
SO ORDERED.