Lee v. Kijakazi
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:21-cv-09057
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nancy Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Netburn ordered a response to Lee’s fee request and directed discussion of magistrate-judge consent.
Nancy Lee, her attorney, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
Nancy Lee previously challenged the denial of Social Security benefits, and the court remanded the matter for further review. The court also approved an agreement awarding Lee $7,900 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
After the remand, Lee received past-due benefits. Her attorney then asked the court to approve additional fees under a law allowing fees of up to 25 percent of past-due benefits. The court did not decide whether to award those fees.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner of Social Security to respond, including on whether the requested fees would be an improper windfall. Judge Netburn also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent to her handling the case for all purposes.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Kijakazi · No. 1:21-cv-09057
- Sarah Netburn
- Jan. 15, 2025
Background
Nancy Lee brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to seek review of a denial of Social Security benefits. The court remanded the matter for further review by the Commissioner of Social Security. The court also approved a stipulation and agreement awarding Lee $7,900 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
After the remand, Lee received retroactive benefits from the Social Security Administration. On January 14, 2025, Lee’s counsel moved for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). That statute permits a court to approve a reasonable fee of no more than 25 percent of the past-due benefits awarded to a plaintiff.
Order
The court ordered the Commissioner to respond to Lee’s fee motion because of the Commissioner’s role and expertise in this area. In particular, the Commissioner must address whether the requested fees would amount to an impermissible windfall.
The court also ordered the parties to discuss whether they would consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) to Magistrate Judge Netburn’s jurisdiction for all purposes. If they consent, they must file a notice of consent for the District Judge’s signature. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the fee motion, or determine the amount of any § 406(b) fee award.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.