Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02299/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02299-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:416 Denial of Social Security Benefits

---

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-02299-LB) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

MARY HUSS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:14-cv-02299-LB 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

[Re: ECF No. 19] 

On April 14, 2015, this court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff Mary Huss’s 

motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and 

remanded the action to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. (4/14/2015 

Order, ECF No. 16.) The court entered judgment in favor of Ms. Huss and against the 

Commissioner that same day. (4/14/2015 Judgment, ECF No. 17.) 

Ms. Huss now moves for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice 

Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Motion, ECF No. 19.) The Commissioner does not argue 

that Ms. Huss is not a “prevailing party,” that its position in the action was “substantially 

justified,” or that “special circumstances make an award unjust,” such that Ms. Huss is not entitled 

to attorney’s fees at all. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); (Opposition, ECF No. 22). Instead, the 

Commissioner contends that that amount of attorney’s fees Ms. Huss requests is unreasonable. 

(Opposition, ECF No. 22 at 2-6.) 

Case 3:14-cv-02299-LB Document 25 Filed 08/17/15 Page 1 of 2
2 

ORDER (No. 3:14-cv-02299-LB) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of California 

The court finds that Ms. Huss has not met her burden to show that the attorney’s fees she 

requests are reasonable and denies the motion without prejudice to allow her counsel to 

supplement the record and the Commission to respond. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 

437 (1983). First, Ms. Huss did not state in the motion or the proposed order the amount of 

attorney’s fees she requests. (See generally Motion, ECF No. 19.) The reply has blank spaces 

where the amount should be. (Reply, ECF No. 23 at 6.) The amount—$5,262—is found only 

within Ms. Huss’s counsel’s declaration. (Weathered Decl., ECF No. 19-1 at 2.) Second, it appears 

that Ms. Huss’s counsel erred in calculating this amount. To arrive at $5,262, counsel states that 

he spent 14.8 hours on this case in 2014 at a rate of $190 per hour (for a purported total of $3,818) 

and 7.6 hours on this case in 2015 at a rate of $190 per hour (for a total of $1,444). (Id.) But 14.8 

times $190 is not $3,818; it is $2,812. Thus, the claimed amount is off by $1,006. Third, 

regardless of the actual amount sought, counsel has not supported his hours. He states in his 

declaration that his expended hours are supported by an attached timesheet, but no timesheet is 

attached. (Id. at 1.) After the Commissioner pointed this omission out in its opposition, Ms. Huss’s 

counsel attached it to his supplemental declaration that he filed along with Ms. Huss’s reply. 

(Supp. Weathered Decl., Ex. 1, ECF No. 23-1.) Leaving the timesheet out of the original 

declaration prevents the Commissioner from reviewing the time entries and thus from having an 

opportunity to object to any entry as unreasonable. 

The court therefore denies Ms. Huss’s motion without prejudice. The court directs Ms. Huss 

and the Commissioner to meet and confer by August 24, 2015 to discuss Ms. Huss’s counsel’s 

attorney’s fees. If Ms. Huss and the Commissioner cannot stipulate to an amount, Ms. Huss’s 

counsel must file a motion for attorney’s fees that, unlike the instant motion, clearly states that the 

amount sought. That amount must be accurate, reasonable, and supported by evidence. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 17, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-02299-LB Document 25 Filed 08/17/15 Page 2 of 2