Opinion
22-CV-276 (NEB/ECW)
02-16-2024
MATTHEW D., Plaintiff, v. MARTIN O'MALLEY,[1] Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
NANCY E. BRASEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On December 7, 2023, this Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this Social Security disability benefits appeal and remanded the matter to the Commissioner under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g). (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff now moves for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (”EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (ECF No. 22.) The Commissioner does not oppose the motion.
Plaintiff filed his motion within thirty days of the Court's order and final judgment, and so his motion is timely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 302 (1993).
The EAJA allows the Court to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party unless the government's position was substantially justified or “special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Cornella v. Schweiker, 728 F.2d 978, 987 (8th Cir. 1984) (applying § 2412 to Social Security cases). “Once a party establishes that he or she was a prevailing party, the burden shifts to the government to prove that it was substantially justified in asserting its position.” Huett v. Bowen, 873 F.2d 1153, 1155 (8th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff has shown that he was a prevailing party under the EAJA. In its prior order, the Court entered a judgment remanding the case under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g). (ECF No. 18.) A “sentence four” remand qualifies a plaintiff as the prevailing party for EAJA purposes. See Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 300-02. The burden of proof thus shifts to the Commissioner. The Commissioner neither opposes Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees nor claims that the agency's position was substantially justified or that an award would be unjust. The Court thus finds that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under the EAJA. See Richard B. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-2039 (KMM-TNL), 2023 WL 4580984, at *2 (D. Minn. July 18, 2023).
The Court next considers whether the requested amount of attorneys' fees is reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
Rate. Under the EAJA, attorneys' fees “shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour” unless “an increase in the cost of living or a special factor” justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Plaintiff seeks an upward adjustment from the statutory maximum to $233 per hour based on his attorneys' Social-Security-law experience and a cost-of-living adjustment. (ECF No. 23 at 3 (citing ECF No. 26 (Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-All Urban Consumers 1996-2022).) The Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) is “‘proper proof' of the increased cost of living since the EAJA's enactment” justifying an award of attorneys' fees greater than the statutory limit. Johnson v. Sullivan, 919 F.2d 503, 504 (8th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). When a plaintiff provides such proof, the Court retains discretion to increase the hourly rate to account for the cost of living; an increase “is not automatic.” Amy W. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-2034 (SRN/LIB), 2022 WL 16972521, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 24, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 16966710 (D. Minn. Nov. 16, 2022); see McNulty v. Sullivan, 886 F.2d 1074, 1074 (8th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
Courts have calculated a cost-of-living adjustment “by multiplying the standard EAJA rate by the CPI for urban consumers for each year attorney's fees are sought, and then dividing the product by the CPI in the month that the cap was imposed, in this case 155.7 for March of 1996, the year the new statutory cap of $125 was put into place.” Sarah K. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-2223 (ECW), 2022 WL 17584414, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 12, 2022); see also Amy W., 2022 WL 16972521, at *3. The Commissioner does not dispute the hourly rate of $233, which is consistent with the application of the CPI for All Urban Consumers in January 2023, when Plaintiff's attorneys began work on his behalf: $125 (statutory rate) x 299.17 (January 2023 CPI, All Urban Consumers) / 155.7 = $240.18. See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu (last visited Feb. 12, 2024) (retrieving data for “U.S. city average, All items - CUUR0000SA0”).
Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the requested rate of $233 per hour is reasonable. See Richard B., 2023 WL 4580984, at *2 (finding that an unopposed request for an hourly rate of $225 based on the CPI to be justified); Abagail K. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-318 (NEB/LIB), 2022 WL 17345355, at *3 (D. Minn. Oct. 14, 2022), (“[G]iven the increase in the Consumer Price Index and Defendant's agreement thereto, Plaintiff's requested hourly rate of $222.00 is reasonable.”); report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17342417 (D. Minn. Nov. 30, 2022); Angela M. S. v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-2566 (WMW/JFD), 2023 WL 111976, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 5, 2023) (awarding fees under the EAJA based on a CPI-adjusted rate of $214 per hour).
Time. Plaintiff's attorneys represent that they spent 42 hours on this case. (ECF No. 24 ¶ 5; ECF No. 25 ¶ 4.) The Court finds that this amount of time is reasonable for counsel experienced in Social Security litigation. See Dianna L. B. v. Saul, No. 19-CV-2561 (TNL), 2021 WL 733995, at *2 (D. Minn. Feb. 25, 2021) (“At 42.1 hours, the requested compensation is well within the amount routinely awarded in this District.”); id. (collecting cases awarding attorneys' fees for between 41.8 and 46.6 hours spent on Social Security litigation).
The Court finds an award of 42 hours at a rate of $233 per hour for a total of $9,786.00 is reasonable and consistent with other EAJA awards in Social Security appeals in this District.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff is AWARDED reasonable attorneys' fees of $9,786.00, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. Section 2412(d).
In accordance with the EAJA and Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010), the EAJA award is payable to Plaintiff as the litigant and is subject to offset to satisfy any preexisting debts that Plaintiff may owe to the United States.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.