Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03394/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03394-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

WO NN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

April R. Darling,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3394-PHX-EHC

ORDER

Plaintiff’s attorney, Eric G. Slepian, filed an Application for Attorney Fees Under the

Equal Access to Justice Act (“Motion for Attorney Fees”) (Dkt. 29) in which he requests

$5,851.33 for attorney fees, reflecting 36.30 hours for legal services, and $250 for filing fees,

which total $6,101.33. The government filed an Opposition to Application for Attorney Fees

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Response”) (Dkt. 30), and Plaintiff filed a Reply to

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal Access

to Justice Act. (“Reply”) (Dkt. 31).

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), the United States is required to

reimburse the prevailing claimant for “reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys” in

designated civil actions such as the instant case. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b) and (d)(1)(A). In

establishing what is reasonable, “[a] district court has wide latitude in determining the

number of hours that were reasonably expended by the prevailing lawyers, but it must

Case 2:05-cv-03394-EHC Document 32 Filed 04/14/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1

The charge was .2 hours for each motion and .1 hour to review the subsequent order.

(See Motion for Attorney Fees, Appendix A).

2

 Counsel has the burden of establishing support for the amount requested. See 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B).

- 2 -

provide enough of an explanation to allow for meaningful review of the fee award.” Sorenson

v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001).

The government first argues that counsel should not be compensated for the time he

spent preparing four extensions of time because they were for counsel’s convenience, not for

Plaintiff’s benefit. (Response, p. 3). The government refers to seven entries for the

preparation of motions and review of the subsequent orders granting the motions. (See

Motion for Attorney Fees, Appendix A). Counsel contends the extensions assisted him in

“perfecting the appeal.” (Reply, p. 6). The total amount of time spent on the motions is de

minimus.

1

 Furthermore, Slepian succeeded in reversing the denial of disability benefits.

The government next argues counsel has not supported his request for 36.30 hours of

work he performed,2

 the case was a routine social security disability claim, and many of

counsel’s itemized services were “redundant and duplicative.” (Response, pp. 3-5). The

government also contends that an attorney of his experience in the field, and his

representation of Plaintiff throughout the administrative proceedings, does not warrant the

number of hours requested. (Response, p.4). However, “the expertise of plaintiff’s counsel

does not make the hours expended unreasonable.” Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 1212,

1213 (C.D.C.A.2000). 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.” Id. Counsel’s claim of 36.30 hours is reasonable.

Case 2:05-cv-03394-EHC Document 32 Filed 04/14/08 Page 2 of 3
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

The hourly rates are not opposed by the government. (See Motion for Attorney Fees,

p. 1; Response, p. 5).

4

Patterson quotes Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir.1991): “[U]nder the

EAJA, the prevailing party is automatically entitled to attorney’s fees for any fee litigation

once the district court has made a determination that the government’s position lacks

substantial justification.”

- 3 -

Lastly, the Court finds counsel is entitled to the 2007 hourly rate of $168.743 for one

hour. See Patterson, 99 F.Supp.2d at 1214.4

 Thus, total reimbursement for attorney fees is

$6,020.07.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney Fees (Dkt. 29) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED compensating counsel pursuant to the EAJA in the

amount of $6,020.07 plus filing fees of $250, for total reimbursement in the amount of

$6,270.07.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:05-cv-03394-EHC Document 32 Filed 04/14/08 Page 3 of 3