Marigny v. Astrue
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered GRANTING 19 MOTION for Attorney Fees.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DEBORAH MARIGNY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-1776
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Counsel for the plaintiff has filed a motion for authorization of attorney’s fees under 42
U.S.C. § 406(b). (Docket Entry No. 19). Counsel sought $3,474.10, which was 25% of the
$37,896.40 past-due social security disability benefits due to plaintiff, less $6,000 that was already
paid to counsel for his services at the administrative level. The motion was supported by the
Administrative Law Judge’s Order Approving Fee Arrangement and by counsel’s resume. (Docket
Entry No. 19). Counsel for the Commissioner filed a brief response, asking that the plaintiff’s
counsel be required to present itemized documentation of the services and his hourly rate, and in a
footnote, raising a question about the timeliness of the request. (Docket Entry No. 20). This court
ordered counsel for the plaintiff to file the itemization and respond. Counsel did so, promptly and
at length. (Docket Entry No. 19).
Counsel’s response provides ample basis for authorizing the fees he seeks. First, if there is
an issue of timeliness, given the circumstances, the time to file would be enlarged under Rule 6(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, given the prompt request once counsel learned of the ALJ’s
favorable decision and the amount of the past-due benefits awarded. Second, the fees are reasonable
under the factors identified in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) and within the 25%
contingency limit on the amount. The bifurcation issue is not part of the analysis in this case
because plaintiff’s counsel only seeks fees for those hours spent in federal court representation. The
Commissioner does not challenge the benefit to the plaintiff, the competency of her counsel, or the
absence of delay. And it is worth noting that given the hours spent in the litigation, the amount of
fees is far from a “windfall” for counsel. There is no disproportion between the time expended and
the fees sought.
Based on the file, this court grants the plaintiff’s motion for authorization of attorney’s fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) and approves payment of $3,474.10.
SIGNED on March 15, 2012, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
2
]]>
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?
