UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

MARCO TASSARA, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

_________________________/ 

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Marco Tassara’s Motion for Attorney 

Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, ECF No. [29] (“Motion”). Defendant Commissioner 

of Social Security filed a Response in Opposition, ECF No. [30], to which Plaintiff did not file a 

reply. The Motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. [32]. On April 7, 2023, Judge Goodman issued a Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. [33] (“R&R”), recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be granted in 

part to award a reduced sum of attorneys’ fees. See id. at 8. The R&R advised the parties that 

objections to the R&R must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the R&R. Id. Plaintiff thereafter 

timely filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, ECF No. [34] (“Objections”). Defendants 

did not file a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R, the Objections, and the record in 

this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 

1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

adopts the R&R in part and rejects it in part. 

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 1 of 7
Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

2

I. BACKGROUND

On July 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant case seeking review of a final decision of the 

Commissioner of Social Security, ECF No. [1]. Plaintiff and Defendant filed their own Motions 

for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. [23]-[24]. Judge Goodman issued a Report and 

Recommendation recommending that summary judgment be granted in favor of Plaintiff. ECF No. 

[27]. The Court adopted the Report and Recommendation and granted summary judgment in favor 

of Plaintiff. ECF No. [28].

Plaintiff, as the prevailing party, filed his Motion for Attorneys’ Fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act. ECF No. [29]. Defendant filed a Response objecting to the number of 

attorney hours claimed as unreasonable. ECF No. [30]. The Motion was referred to Judge 

Goodman for an R&R. ECF No. [32]. On April 7, 2023, Judge Goodman issued an R&R

recommending Plaintiff’s motion be granted in part to award Plaintiff the requested fees less a 25 

percent reduction for hours spent on the Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees. ECF No. [33] at 8.

Plaintiff timely filed his Objections to the R&R in which he objects to the recommendation 

that the total attorneys’ fees be reduced. Plaintiff argues that the time expended was reasonable 

and the recommended 25 percent reduction in hours was unwarranted. See ECF No. [34] at 4.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Objections to Magistrate Judge’s R&R

“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 

must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings 

and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. 

Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 2 of 7
Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

3

(11th Cir. 1989)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal 

authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the report and recommendation to which 

an objection is made are reviewed de novo only if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings 

that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s 

report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (quoting Johnson 

v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)); see also Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. 

WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001). “It is improper for 

an objecting party to ... submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing 

of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. 

Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to an 

R & R.” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 

21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 

382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report 

and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

B. Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees

“[T]he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the 

number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” 

Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). “This amount is ordinarily referred to as the 

lodestar.” Thornton v. Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 312 F. App’x 161, 163-64 (11th Cir. 2008) 

(citations and internal quotations omitted). The resulting fee carries a presumption that it is 

reasonable. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984). This lodestar amount may then be adjusted 

upward or downward based upon other considerations. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-37. Plaintiff bears 

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 3 of 7
Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

4

the burden of documenting the reasonableness of the hours expended and the hourly rate. A.C.L.U. 

v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427 (11th Cir. 1999).

III. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the parties did not object to the finding that Plaintiff is entitled to 

attorneys’ fees or that Plaintiff’s counsel charged a reasonable hourly rate. The Court has reviewed 

and adopts both of those findings.

Plaintiff objects to the recommended 25 percent reduction to the time spent on Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Plaintiff also “requests 

compensation for the additional 5.1 hours of attorney time spent preparing these objections.” ECF 

No. [34] at 10. The Court addresses in turn the reasonableness of the time spent on the Motion for 

Summary Judgment, the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, and the Objections to the R&R.

C. Hours Spent on Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff argues that his counsel expended a reasonable number of hours reviewing and 

notating a lengthy 1,315-page transcript and efficiently presenting a 13-page brief. In his Motion,

Plaintiff cites to multiple cases where his attorney spent comparable amounts of time on similar 

cases with varying record lengths that were approved by the court. ECF No. [29] at 12-13. 

Defendant argues that the time spent was unreasonable and cites to cases pointing out that “most 

EAJA petitions for a regular Social Security case are in the range from 20-30 hours total.” ECF 

No. [30] at 3. Defendant does not specifically cite any authority showing a reasonable number of 

hours spent on a summary judgment motion in a comparable case in a comparable market. See id. 

The billing records reflect that Plaintiff requests compensation for a total of 26.5 hours for 

time spent preparing his Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court does not find support for 

Defendant’s position that 30 hours is the maximum number of hours reasonably expended 

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 4 of 7
Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

5

litigating a social security appeal. Multiple recent cases from this district found requests for more 

than 30 hours in attorneys’ fees reasonable. See Martinez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 20-CV22812, 2023 WL 1867721, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2023), report and recommendation adopted 

sub nom. Martinez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 20-CV-22812, 2023 WL 1864423 (S.D. 

Fla. Feb. 9, 2023) (finding “51.3 hours, which consists of 47.7 hours expended in litigating this 

action and 3.6 hours expended litigating fees, is a reasonable amount of hours under the 

circumstances.”); Lee v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 21-CV-80677, 2023 WL 399804, at *3 (S.D. 

Fla. Jan. 10, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 21-CV-80677, 2023 WL 399849 

(S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2023) (finding 37 hours reasonable); Jimenez v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-25178, 

2022 WL 18356254, at *1-2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 

20-CV-25178, 2023 WL 199366 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2023) (finding 38 hours reasonable).

Considering the volume of the record in this case, and Plaintiff’s success litigating the Motion for 

Summary Judgment, the Court finds that no reduction is necessary to the 26.5 hours spent 

preparing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

D. Hours Spent on Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiff also requests compensation for 9.9 hours spent preparing the Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees. Plaintiff objects to Judge Goodman’s recommendation that the time spent 

preparing the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees be reduced by 25 percent. Plaintiff argues that 

“Plaintiff’s original request for 2.7 hours for drafting the fee motion was entirely in line with the 

Commissioner’s assertion that ‘Various courts have reduced requested fee awards for the 

preparation of EAJA petitions to between 30 minutes and 2.5 hours.’” ECF No. [34] at 7 (quoting 

ECF No. [30] at 5). Plaintiff argues that his counsel, after receiving objections to the original fee 

motion, expended an additional 7.7 hours revising the fee motion. 

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 5 of 7
Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

6

In this district, courts typically award between one and four hours for time spent on motions 

for attorneys’ fees in EAJA cases. See Martinez, 2023 WL 1867721, at *4 (finding 3.6 hours for 

work performed litigating fees reasonable); Cullum v. Kijakazi, No. 21-CV-14086, 2022 WL 

597499, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 21-CV-14086, 2022 

WL 594829 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 28, 2022) (approving 2.3 hours preparing the fee petition). The Court 

recognizes that Plaintiff’s counsel expended significant additional time, 7.2 hours, researching 

cases and providing authority when the Commissioner indicated opposition to the original draft of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. Considering the significant additional research and 

drafting, the Court still finds the amount of time spent excessive compared to the time spent 

drafting comparable motions in comparable cases. The Court therefore agrees with the

recommendation in the R&R and reduces the time spent on the Motion for Attorneys’ fees by 25

percent. 

E. Hours Spent Preparing Objections to R&R

Plaintiff requests an additional 5.1 hours for time preparing the Objections. Plaintiff argues 

that “to the extent this Court does not adopt the Magistrate’s recommendations in full, Plaintiff is 

due compensation for time spent defending the fee motion.” ECF No. [34] at 11. Consistent with 

the time typically awarded on motions for attorneys’ fees in similar cases, and Plaintiff’s partial 

success in objecting to the R&R, the Court finds that 2.5 hours spent preparing Objections to the 

R&R was reasonable. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff an additional 2.5 hours at a rate of 

$231.49.1

1 Plaintiff did not submit a proposed 2023 rate, so the Court applies the approved 2022 rate.

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 6 of 7
Case No. 20-cv-23103-BLOOM/Goodman

7

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R, ECF No. [33], is ADOPTED IN PART.

2. Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. [34], are SUSTAINED IN PART AND

OVERRULED IN PART.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. [29], is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART 

as follows:

a. Plaintiff is entitled to recover $9,299.27 in attorneys’ fees.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 19, 2023

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: 

Counsel of Record

Case 1:20-cv-23103-BB Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/22/2023 Page 7 of 7