Roxbury v. Commissioner Social Security Administration
Filing
45
ORDER: Granting Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 40 in the amount of $2,298.57 representing 12.75 hours for work at a rate of $180.28. Signed on 12/21/2011 by U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan. (jw)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION
DIANE ROXBURY
Civ. No. 08-951-HO
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Plaintiff previously sought an award of attorney fees pursuant
to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.
amount of $9,859.58.
ยง
2412, in the
The Commissioner objected to hours billed
after the filing of the Commissioner's successful motion to remand,
but the court found the hours spent in opposing the remand motion
did benefit plaintiff in identifying further issues for remand.
Plaintiff now seeks an award of fees pursuant to EAJA for time
spent
litigating
the
initial
fee
petition.
Plaintiff
seeks
the
of
spent
$3,163.91 for 17.55 hours of work.
The
Commissioner
objects
to
number
hours
litigating the issue and lack of detail in documenting those hours.
Plaintiff's counsel uses the objection as an opportunity to revisit
the initial fee application and now seeks an award at the market
hourly rate by arguing the Commissioner has acted in bad faith in
ial
opposing the current fee application and, by extension,
fee application.!
Plaintiff's counsel has resorted to abrasive tactics in the
past
and
this
case
is
no
exception.
The
court
takes
this
opportunity to remind counsel that no matter the relative merits of
a party's
position,
counsel
should always
strive
civility.
The court understands that in advancing a claim for an
hourly market rate, bad faith must be demonstrated.
to maintain
However, such
arguments should be reserved for extraordinary cases.
The Commissioner did not engage in bad faith in objecting to
fees related to contesting a voluntary remand and the court sees no
reason to revisit that issue.
Moreover, a billing of 10.75 hours
on the part of attorney Ralph Wilborn was made for, in part, "rereading Plaintiff's memorandum."
apparently duplicative work.
The government objects to this
Plaintiff had two attorneys work for
her on this case and attorney Tim Wilborn argues that Ralph Wilborn
did not draft the memorandum in support of the fee and, therefore,
!Plainti
argues that an adjustment to the market rate
would result in increase from $9,859.58 to $59,322.22 for the
initial fee application and an increase from $3,163.91 to
$18,284.12 for the instant fee application. The court finds that
an hourly rate of over $1,000 for social security work in this
area to be well beyond any reasonable market rate as well even
accounting for the contingent nature of the litigation.
it was necessary for him to read it before drafting a reply to the
response.
Not only is the government's reading of the billing as
duplicative understandable giving thai it uses the word "re-read,"
the
court
finds
that
dividing
the
work
in
such
a
manner
unnecessarily added to the amount of time to draft the reply.
The billing indicates that the majority of the work done with
respect to the fee dispute was shouldered by attorney Ralph Wilborn
who
did
not
draft
the
initial
application
for
fees.
This
inefficient division of labor resulted in the extra time expended
by Ralph Wilborn having to review the application.
In addition,
the billing indicates that Ralph Wilborn outlined and drafted the
reply brief, but that Tim Wilborn also spent time reviewing the
response and drafting the reply brief.
Accordingly, the time spent
by attorney Ti.m wi.lborn on the ,reply wi lJ be excluded from the EA,TA
award and the court deducts 4.8 hours expended by attorney Tim
Wilborn in that regard.'
Plaintiff's supplemental fee application (#40) is granted in
the amount of $2,298.57 representing 12.75 hours for work at a rate
of $180.28.
DATED this
-slr
~I-- day of September,
2011.
GE
'The court specifically deducts .2 hours spent on reVl ing
defendant's EAJA response, .5 hours filing review and providing
memo to co-counsel for EAJA reply, 1.5 hours working on EAJA
arguments, and 2 hours drafting EAJA reply brief.
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
