Walton v. Massanari

22 Citing cases

  1. Irwin v. Astrue

    No. 3:10-CV-545-HZ (D. Or. Mar. 5, 2012)   Cited 15 times

    Plaintiff reads the Commissioner's argument as objecting only to the research necessary to locate and cut and paste the table into the Wilborn Declaration and not an objection to the time necessary to draft the declaration or perform other research, including legal research. Plaintiff asserts the term "research" includes research of "issues addressed in Chryel D. Burt v. Michael J. Astrue, Civil Action No. 08-1427 (E.D. Pa. April 6, 2011) and Walton v. Massanari, 177 F. Supp. 2d 359 (E.D. Pa. 2001)," and therefore her requested hours are reasonable. Reply, p. 6. I disagree. Wilborn makes clear that he maintains a high level of "competence and expertise as a Social Security disability law practitioner.

  2. Burt v. Astrue

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-1427 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2011)   Cited 5 times
    Awarding benefits, closely examining procedural record

    The EAJA permits awards of attorney's fees only to the extent they are reasonable. Citizens Council of Del. Cnty. v. Brinegar, 741 F.2d 584, 594-95 (3d Cir. 1984). The party seeking attorney's fees thus has the burden to prove that its request is reasonable.Rode v. Dellarciprete, 892 F.2d 1177, 1183 (3d Cir. 1990); Walton v. Massanari, 177 F. Supp. 2d 359, 361 (E.D. Pa. 2001). "To meet its burden, the fee petitioner must `submit evidence supporting the hours worked and rates claimed.'"

  3. Somogy v. Astrue

    CASE NO. 3:08-cv-269-J-TEM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011)   Cited 3 times

    See Sorich v. Shalala, 838 F.Supp. 1354 (D. Neb. 1993). In Walton v. Massanari, 177 F.Supp.2d 359 (E.D. Pa. 2001), the court awarded the EAJA fees for 180.1 attorney hours in a case that was litigated at the district court, then heard by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit before it was remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security. Here, this Court finds seventy eight and one tenth (78.1) hours of the eighty-five and three tenths (85.3) hours sought were necessary and reasonably expended.

  4. MP v. Parkland Sch. Dist.

    5:20-cv-04447 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 5, 2021)

    This time expenditure on the drafting and review of a federal Complaint is reasonable. See, e.g., Walton v. Massanari, 177 F.Supp.2d 359, 364 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding collective fifty-three hours spent on twenty-seven-page appellate brief by two attorneys was reasonable where case was not “complex” but “involved a detailed fact-specific record”); see also Maldonado, 256 F.3d at 185-87 (finding collective 120 hours spent by multiple attorneys on forty-one-page brief was reasonable despite only encompassing a single uncomplicated issue). When you factor in the time it takes to review a 930-page record while drafting the Complaint, the reasonableness of the hours becomes even more apparent.

  5. Quarrie v. Wells

    Civ. No. 17-350 MV/GBW (D.N.M. Jul. 10, 2020)

    Pipeline Prods. v. Madison Cos., LLC, 2019 WL 3252743, at *3 (D. Kan. Jul. 19, 2019) (unpublished) (citing Farmer v. Astrue, 2010 WL 4904801, at *3 (D. Kan. Nov. 24, 2010) (unpublished); Seamands v. Sears Holding Corp., 2011 WL 884391, at *12 (D. Kan. Mar. 11, 2011) (unpublished); Howard v. Segway, Inc., 2013 WL 869955, at *8 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 7, 2013) (unpublished)). See also In re Toys "R" Us-Del., Inc. Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig., 295 F.R.D. 438, 466 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (just over three hours per page found reasonable in a "not particularly complex" class action); Walton v. Massanari, 177 F. Supp. 2d 359, 365 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (approximately two hours per page found reasonable). In the circumstances of the present case, the Court concludes that the hours claimed by defense counsel in preparing Defendant NMT's Motion for Order to Show Cause are reasonable.

  6. Levyash v. Colvin

    Case No. 3:16-cv-2189 (BRM) (D.N.J. Jun. 4, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    96, after voluntary reduction, for 55.5 hours of initial litigation, 15.75 hours drafting and filing reply, and 15 hours working on a surreply); McCaley v. Barnhart, Civ. No. 01-4953(DRD) (D.N.J. Sept.19, 2005) (awarding the Plaintiff $19,879.57 for 65.75 attorney hours and 124.45 law student hours involving a 64-page appellate brief and 310-page appendix.); Walton v. Massanari, 177 F. Supp. 2d 359, 363-365 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (awarding approximately $25,410 for 180 hours of attorney hours for SSA case upheld at the Third Circuit). Generally, courts have found hours that are duplicative or far above the norm to be unreasonable.

  7. Homer v. Law Offices of Frederic I. Weinberg & Assocs., P.C.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-880 (E.D. Pa. May. 16, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    Over Weinberg's objections, we approve of 0.1 hours spent on March 13 and 0.3 hours spent on March 27, 2017 for proofreading. Proofreading is more than a mere administrative task and can be recovered. See Walton v. Massanari, 177 F. Supp. 2d 359, 365 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (suggesting that proofreading is not clerical). Conclusion

  8. McIlrath v. Berryhill

    CIVIL ACTION No. 15-1382-JWL (D. Kan. May. 23, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    (Doc. 28 p. 5) (hereinafter EAJA Reply). He argues that claims regarding a Cadillac litigation strategy, aggressive strategy, and briefing every possible issue are not "specific objections" within the meaning of the governing law regarding objections to hours expended for which fees are claimed pursuant to the EAJA, and are insufficient to advise the fee applicant of what is at issue. (EAJA Reply 5-6) (quoting Walton v. Massanari, 177 F. Supp. 2d 359, 361-62 (E.D. Pa. 2001)). He argues that although the court did not find merit in every issue raised by Plaintiff, he may be compensated for all good-faith arguments raised. Id. at 6-7.

  9. Beattie v. Colvin

    240 F. Supp. 3d 294 (D.N.J. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Rejecting "non-specific challenge" to hours requested for pre-Complaint work in an Equal Access to Justice Act case

    Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc Sec. , Civ. No. 07–4779(SRC), Slip. Op. at 6 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2011) (awarding $29,757 based on 163.50 attorney hours to the Rutgers Urban Legal Clinic).Finally, the reasonableness of Plaintiff's request is further bolstered by similar social security cases in which courts have found similarly-requested attorney hours to be reasonable and awarded appropriate fees. SeeGonzalez , 564 F.Supp.2d at 320 (awarding $30,217.95 for 181 hours); Bilak , 73 F.Supp.3d at 488 (awarding $34,207.02 for 176 hours); Cintron v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. , 13–CV–7125, 2015 WL 3938998, at *4 (D.N.J. June 25, 2015) (awarding 14,737.24 for 75 hours of work done at the district court level alone); Walton v. Massanari , 177 F.Supp.2d 359, 363–365 (E. D Pa. 2001) (awarding $25,410 for 180 hours).The Court will therefore award $33,758.

  10. Gonzalez v. Colvin

    146 F. Supp. 3d 661 (E.D. Pa. 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, the length of Plaintiff's briefing, approximately 70 pages, supports Plaintiff's fee request, as the Third Circuit has endorsed billing for two to three hours of time per page of briefing. See, e.g.,Walton v. Massanari, 177 F.Supp.2d 359, 365 (E.D.Pa.2001) (citing Maldonado v. Houstoun, 256 F.3d 181, 185–97 (3d Cir.2001) ). Finally, Plaintiff's briefing reflected high-quality work from his counsel—including thorough research, command of the administrative record, and reasoned analysis and advocacy—and ultimately resulted in a favorable disposition from this Court. After review of counsel's billing records, the Court calculates that counsel spent 46.2 hours on Plaintiff's Request for Review, which includes Mr. Frankel's billing entries on 12/12/13, 1/7/14, 1/9/14, 1/22/14, 1/28/14, 2/5/14, 2/11/14, 2/18/14, and all entries beginning on 2/21/14 and ending on 4/4/14; and Mr. Stein's entries on 11/22/13, 1/21/14, 3/17/14, 3/24/14, 3/31/14.