1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-81043-Civ-Matthewman

DANIEL HAROLD SMILOWITZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (“EAJA”)

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“Motion”). [DE 40]. Defendant filed a response 

to the Motion, advising that Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s requested relief for EAJA fees in 

the amount of $5,260.65 for 22.5 hours of attorney representation and 8.4 hours of paralegal services, 

and also does not oppose Plaintiff’s request for $17.25 in expenses and $400.00 in costs. [DE 41].

Having reviewed the record and being otherwise duly advised, Plaintiff’s Motion [DE 40] is 

GRANTED and Plaintiff is awarded a total of $5.260.65 in attorney’s fees, $17.25 in expenses, 

and $400.00 in costs.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 3, 2020, Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a Complaint [DE 1] under the Social 

Security Act seeking judicial review of Defendant’s final decision denying his claim for disability 

benefits. On March 1, 2021, Defendant filed an Answer [DE 17] and a certified copy of the 

underlying administrative record [DE 18]. On June 25, 2021, Defendant filed an unopposed motion 

to reverse and remand this case under sentence four of Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). [DE 37]. On June 

Case 9:20-cv-81043-WM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2021 Page 1 of 5
2

28, 2021, the Court granted the motion to remand [DE 38] and entered Final Judgment [DE 39].

Plaintiff has now filed the instant Motion requesting relief for EAJA fees in the amount of $5.260.65 

for 22.5 hours of attorney representation and 8.4 hours of paralegal services, $17.25 in expenses,

and $400.00 in costs.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Entitlement to EAJA Award

Under the EAJA, a party is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees if: (1) the party prevailed 

in a non-tort suit involving the United States; (2) the Government’s position was not substantially 

justified; (3) the party timely files an application for attorney fees; (4) the party had a net worth of 

less than $2 million when the complaint was filed; and (5) no special circumstances would make the 

award of fees unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).

A plaintiff in a social security appeal prevails if the court orders a sentence-four remand. 

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993). An EAJA request is timely if made within 30 

days of the final judgment, which, if no appeal is taken, is 90 days from the judgment’s entry. See

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) & (d)(2)(G) (“final judgment” is judgment that is final and not 

appealable); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of judgment 

in case in which United States is party). A premature EAJA request is timely. Myers v. Sullivan, 

916 F.2d 659, 679 n. 20 (11th Cir. 1990). An EAJA motion must allege that the Commissioner’s 

position was not substantially justified, Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 160 (1990), and, if 

alleged, the Commissioner bears the burden to show that it was, U.S. v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418, 1425 

(11th Cir. 1997).

Case 9:20-cv-81043-WM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2021 Page 2 of 5
3

The first four conditions are met here, and, as to the fifth one, no equitable consideration is 

apparent or presented that would make an EAJA award unjust. Plaintiff prevailed because the Court 

ordered a sentence-four remand. Plaintiff’s Motion is timely. Plaintiff’s net worth was less than $2 

million when he filed the case as demonstrated by his financial affidavit. [DE 40-8]. The Motion 

alleges that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified, and the Commissioner does 

not seek to show otherwise. The Commissioner does not contend that this case presents a special 

circumstance, and none is apparent. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA award.

B. Reasonableness of Amount Requested

Having found that Plaintiff is entitled to an EAJA award, the only remaining issue is whether 

the requested amount is reasonable. The EAJA “establishes a two-step analysis for determining the 

appropriate hourly rate to be applied in calculating attorney’s fees under the Act.” Meyer v. Sullivan, 

958 F.2d 1029, 1033 (11th Cir. 1992). “The first step . . . is to determine the market rate for similar 

services provided by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation.” Id. “The 

second step, which is needed only if the market rate is greater than [$125] per hour, is to determine 

whether the court should adjust the hourly fee upward from [$125] to take into account an increase 

in the cost of living [since 1996], or a special factor.” Id. at 1033–34.

The party seeking fees must demonstrate reasonableness, which includes “supplying the 

court with specific and detailed evidence.” Norman v. Housing Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 

F.2d 1292, 1299, 1303 (11th Cir. 1988). A party seeking EAJA fees must also show the 

reasonableness of the number of hours expended. Watford v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1562, 1568 (11th 

Cir. 1985).

Case 9:20-cv-81043-WM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2021 Page 3 of 5
4

Here, Plaintiff is represented by attorney Suzanne Harris, Esq. Plaintiff seeks a total EAJA 

award of $5.260.65—to account for 22.5 hours of attorney representation at an hourly rate of $203.94 

and 8.4 hours of paralegal services at an hourly rate of $80. Attorney Harris has provided a time log 

[DE 40-4, 5], which contains a detailed breakdown of the tasks performed, when the tasks were

performed, and how long it took to perform them. Attorney Harris also requests $17.25 in expenses

for certified mailing and $400.00 in costs for the filing fee in this case. [DE 40-6, 7]

Drawing upon its own knowledge and expertise in the award of attorney fees, the Court finds 

that the hours spent are reasonable and that the hourly rate sought—which accounts for applicable 

cost of living adjustments, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii)—is in full accord with applicable statutory 

standards. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303 (“The court . . . is itself an expert on the question and may 

consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an 

independent judgment either with or without the aid of witnesses as to value.”). Attorney Harris

specializes in handling social security appeals, as reflected in her many appearances before this 

Court. Her work in this case included communicating with her client about this case; reviewing the 

underlying administrative record; researching the issues involved and applicable law; and reviewing 

case filings. The Court readily finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested attorney fee amount of 

$5.260.65. The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested $17.25 in expenses and 

$400.00 in costs.

C. Assignment of Fees

An EAJA award is to the party, not his attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 592–93 

(2010). Because Plaintiff is eligible for an EAJA award and his requested amount is reasonable, the 

Court grants the motion and awards Plaintiff the fees sought. Plaintiff has assigned any fees awarded 

under EAJA to his attorney. [DE 40-1, 8]. With such assignment in place, if the U.S. Department of 

Case 9:20-cv-81043-WM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2021 Page 4 of 5
5

the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, any remaining EAJA fees should 

be paid in Plaintiff’s name but sent directly to Plaintiff’s counsel.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion [DE 40] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is hereby 

awarded a total of $5.260.65 in attorney’s fees, $17.25 in expenses, and $400.00 in costs. The EAJA 

fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff and sent to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office after the Commissioner 

determines whether Plaintiff owes any federal debt.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, 

this 12th day of October, 2021.

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 9:20-cv-81043-WM Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/12/2021 Page 5 of 5