Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04607/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04607-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANICE D. MCCOY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of the Social Security

Administration,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-04607 CW

ORDER GRANTING IN

PART PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY'S FEES

Plaintiff's counsel moves for attorney's fees pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Defendant Jo Anne Barnhart, in

her capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

opposes this motion, arguing that the amount of fees requested is

unreasonable and excessive. The matter was submitted on the

papers. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties,

the Court grants in part the motion for attorney's fees.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Janice McCoy brought this action, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 405(g), for judicial review of Defendant's final decision

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1The Court notes that, although Plaintiff's counsel states

that he spent 32.1 hours and requests attorney's fees for 32.1

hours, the attached document indicates that he spent 32.7 hours on

this case. 

2

that she was not disabled. On October 27, 2005, the Court issued

an order granting Plaintiff's motion for remand and denying

Defendant's motion for summary judgment; the Clerk entered

judgment. 

Plaintiff's counsel now requests $6,307.40 in attorney's fees. 

In his opening brief, Plaintiff's counsel requested $4,995.74 in

attorney's fees for the 32.1 hours he expended on this case.1

 He

noted that, because of his eighteen years of experience with Social

Security cases, he spent less time than the average attorney would

have needed to spend. In his reply, he amended the original

request to include the 8.4 hours he spent preparing the reply. 

Plaintiff's counsel has now expended 40.5 hours on this case,

including the fee litigation. He contends that his request and the

number of hours he spent on this case are reasonable under the

EAJA. Defendant argues that they are not. 

DISCUSSION

The EAJA provides,

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a

court shall award to a prevailing party other than the

United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any

costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by

that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding

in tort), including proceedings for judicial review of

agency action, brought by or against the United States in

any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the

court finds that the position of the United States was

substantially justified or that special circumstances

make an award unjust.

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). A party claiming fees has the burden of

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

documenting the reasonable hours expended and should exclude from a

fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise

unnecessary. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-37 (1983).

The party must exercise “billing judgment” with respect to hours

included in this fee calculation. Id. at 437.

Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiff is a prevailing

party; nor does Defendant argue that the government's position in

this case was substantially justified. Only the reasonableness of

the time Plaintiff's counsel spent on this case is disputed. 

Defendant argues that the number of attorney hours counsel claims

to have expended is unreasonable and the hours should be reduced.

1. Plaintiff's Complaint

Plaintiff's counsel claims to have spent one hour preparing

the complaint: his entry states "write compl, etc." Defendant

contends this amount is excessive and unreasonable because the

complaint filed was a form complaint. Defendant argues that, based

on counsel's eighteen years of experience, this time should be

reduced to 0.3 hours.

Counsel acknowledges that it was a form complaint. He notes,

however, that the one hour also included opening the paper file and

data documentation, re-checking deadlines, writing specifics into

the complaint, formatting, editing, proofreading, printing,

signing, completing a civil cover sheet and making sure that the

package was ready to go to court. He states that he has never

completed the complaint and other initiating documents in eighteen

minutes or less. Nonetheless, counsel states that he wishes not to

take the Court's time on this very minor matter and would concede

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

the issue and would not object if the Court reduced the amount by

0.7 hours, as Defendant contends is reasonable.

Regardless of counsel's willingness to concede, the Court

finds that one hour is a reasonable amount of time to prepare and

file the complaint and other initiating documents.

2. Legal Briefs

Plaintiff's counsel claims to have spent approximately 20

hours preparing legal briefs and arguments: 13.1 hours on the

opening brief; 6.3 hours on the reply brief; and 0.7 hours on

drafting proposed orders, e-filing and e-mailing documents. 

Defendant contends that, because the issues in this case were

routine and non-complex, the amount of hours should be reduced to

ten hours. But as one court has noted, "Social security cases are

fact-intensive and require a careful application of the law to the

testimony and documentary evidence, which must be reviewed and

discussed in considerable detail." Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp.

1212, 1213 (C.D. Cal. 2000). Here, Plaintiff's counsel was not

counsel at the administrative hearing below. And thus, even though

the issues presented in this case were not complex, counsel needed

to spend time learning the facts of this case. 

Defendant cites Nugent v. Massanari, 2002 WL 356656 (N.D. Cal.

Feb. 28, 2002), in support of her argument that courts have reduced

EAJA fees in Social Security cases handled by experienced counsel

that involved legal issues that were neither unique or complex. In

Nugent, the court found that spending 28.8 hours researching and

writing the legal brief was excessive given the attorney's twentyone years of specialized expertise and familiarity with similar

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 5

social security disability cases. But the court did not reduce the

hours to eight hours, as requested by the defendant. Instead, the

court determined that twenty hours was a reasonable time for the

work involved. 

This Court also finds that twenty hours of time is reasonable

for the work involved and will not reduce the amount as Defendant

requests. 

3. Communications with Previous Counsel

According to Defendant, Plaintiff's counsel claims to have

spent 1.9 hours communicating with Plaintiff's previous attorney.

Defendant argues that this time was excessive, redundant or

otherwise unnecessary and not compensable under the EAJA. 

Counsel argues that this time was necessary because the

previous attorney represented (and represents) Plaintiff in the

administrative proceedings. Counsel contends he needed to consult

with his predecessor about the contents of the hearing testimony,

developing evidence, the status of the case and the results of the

litigation. Further, Defendant's calculation of 1.9 hours, counsel

notes, is misleading. For example, on October 13, 2004, counsel

did not spend 1.1 hours communicating with Plaintiff's previous

attorney. Instead, the entry reads, "cont eval, telt prev atty,

telt cx." The October 28, 2005 entry for 0.4 hours reads "rec,

evaluate ct decision, tt prev atty, etc." Although counsel argues

that this time is reasonable, he again states that if the Court

rules in Defendant's favor "in order to save attending to such an

inconsequential issue," he would not object. 

The Court finds that the time spent communicating with

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

Plaintiff's previous attorney, who is still her attorney for

administrative proceedings, was reasonable. 

4. Fees for Securing Attorney's Fees

Plaintiff's counsel claims to have spent 2.0 hours preparing

an EAJA proposal letter to Defendant regarding attorney's fees and

1.6 hours preparing and filing his motion for attorney's fees. 

Defendant contends that this is excessive, noting that both the

letter and motion contain largely boilerplate language, and that

the time should be reduced collectively to 0.5 hours. 

Plaintiff's counsel contends that not even the quickest of

drafters could have finished the letter and motion in 0.5 hours. 

He notes that in Patterson, the court found that 3.5 hours spent

litigating the EAJA motion was reasonable. 99 F. Supp. 2d at 1215. 

Nonetheless, counsel again states that if it would please the Court

to resolve this issue in Defendant's favor, and save the time

necessary for a resolution of this issue, he would not object. 

Again, regardless of counsel's willingness to concede, the

Court finds that 3.6 hours is collectively a reasonable amount of

time even for experienced counsel to write a proposal letter, draft

a boilerplate opening brief and draft a reply. Eight hours and

twenty-four minutes, however, is not a reasonable amount of time to

spend preparing the reply, especially given counsel's willingness

to concede three out of four of Defendant's arguments. The Court

will not award counsel the additional $1,311.66 that he requests

for the time spent preparing the reply. Instead, the Court will

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The hourly rate for work performed in 2004 is $152.18, and

the hourly rate for work performed in 2005 is $156.15

7

award $624.60, which is based on $156.152 per hour multiplied by

four hours, a reasonable amount of time for counsel to have spent

preparing the reply. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part

Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees (Docket No. 27). The Court

finds that 36.1 hours was a reasonable amount of time to spend on

this case. See, e.g., Patterson, 99 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (noting

that a survey of several dozen social security cases in which

attorneys' fees were awarded suggested that the 33.75 hours spent

by the plaintiff's counsel fell within the approved range); id. at

n.2 (listing social security cases and the amount of time spent by

the plaintiff's counsel). The 8.4 hours spent on the reply,

however, was not reasonable and counsel will be awarded fees for

only four hours of that time. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff's

counsel $5,620.34 in attorney's fees for the 36.1 hours that

counsel expended on this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/10/06

___________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 8

Case 4:04-cv-04607-CW Document 33 Filed 01/10/06 Page 8 of 8