Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-1022 Section "A"
June 7, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff, Rebecca Lodges's Application for Attorney's Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA") 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (a), (d). In the instant motion plaintiff seeks an award in the full amount of $3,000.00, representing 24 hours of judicial time at a rate of $125.00 per hour. The Commissioner has not disputed the hourly rate or computation of hours spent rendering legal services in this case.
Plaintiff, Rebecca Lodge, is the prevailing party in a claim for social security benefits. The position of the United States was not substantially justified.
Plaintiff supports her application with a memorandum and an itemization of time verifying the time counsel expended in her case.
Considering that the Government has not opposed the claimant's EAJA application for attorney's fees and that the compensation requested comports with the applicable standards and appears justified considering the facts of the case, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's application for attorneyts fees in the full amount of $3,000.00. Relevant Provisions of the EAJA
Until March 29, 1996, the EAJA provided that "attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 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." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (ii) (before 1996 amendment). In Hall v. Shalala, 50 F.3d 367, 370 (5th Cir. 1995), the Fifth Circuit held that the district court has discretion to award attorney's fees at or below the $75 statutory hourly rate, but that the $75 rate is a ceiling which cannot be exceeded unless the district court determines a higher fee is justified by inflation or a special factor.
The Fifth Circuit in Hall invited the judges of the Eastern District of Louisiana to address any lack of uniformity in fees awarded under the EAJA in this district. Accordingly, the district judges met en banc and issued a General Order dated September 12, 1995, which provided that "`the amount of attorney's fees warded [under the EAJA] shall be $75.00 per hour, conditioned upon the ability of the judge for good cause to increase the amount of attorney's fees awarded to that which is appropriate under the circumstances.'" Adams v. Chater, 914 F. Supp. 1365, 1369 (E.D. La. 1995) (quoting the General Order)
The EAJA was amended in 1996 to increase the maximum statutory rate from $75 to $125 per hour. 28 U.S.C. § 2412. That amendment applies to civil actions, such as this, commenced on or after its effective date of March 29, 1996. Id., Historical and Statutory Note to 1996 Amendment (quoted in Federal Civil Judicial Procedure and Rules 965 (West pamph. 1999 ed.)). In October of 1997, the district judges of this Court again met en banc and amended the General Order to conform with the new statutory rate. The General Order now provides "[t]hat in cases in which the Equal Access to Justice Act applies, the amount of attorney's fees awarded may be $125.00 per hour, conditioned upon a finding by the Judge of good cause to increase the amount of attorney's fees to $125.00 or that which is appropriate under the circumstances."
The instant action was commenced after the effective date of the amendments to the statute and the amended General Order. Accordingly, the amended statute and the General Order apply to this case.
In determining an appropriate award, the district court must take into account the goals of the EAJA. The hourly rate must satisfy the dual purposes of the EAJA: (1) to ensure adequate representation for those who need it; and (2) to minimize the cost of this representation to taxpayers. Baker v. Bowen, 839 F.2d 1075, 1083 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that a rate of $125 per hour is reasonable. This rate satisfies the dual purposes of the EAJA by ensuring adequate representation while minimizing the costs to taxpayers.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the fee applicant bears the burden of documenting and supporting the reasonableness of all time expenditures for which compensation is sought. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983). Applying the Hensley rationale, the Fifth Circuit has observed that "the burden of proof of reasonableness of the number of hours is on the fee applicant and not on the opposing party to prove their unreasonableness." Leroy v. City of Houston, 831 F.2d 576, 586 (5th Cir. 1987) "Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, and otherwise unnecessary. . . ." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.
Disposition of Application
Plaintiff's counsel should be compensated for reasonable legal services rendered and properly documented by contemporaneous time records. Plaintiff's counsel's time records document hours spent rendering reasonable legal services in this case. This Court is of the opinion that the appropriate amount of EAJA attorney's fees was requested — that is, $3,000.00 which represents compensation for 24 hours.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees under the EAJA is granted and plaintiff's counsel is awarded fees in the amount of $3,000.00.