Aida C. v. Commissioner Of Social Security Of The United States
- Andrew Krause
- 7:24-cv-03644
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Aida C. v. Commissioner, Judge Krause required more facts supporting equitable tolling before deciding Aida C.’s late EAJA-fee motion.
Aida C. and her lawyer, whose late request for Equal Access to Justice Act fees remained unresolved and required a fuller explanation; the Commissioner was asked to respond only if the court accepted the late filing.
What happened
Aida C. sued the Commissioner of Social Security and obtained a court-ordered remand for further administrative proceedings. After judgment was entered in her favor, her lawyer filed a request for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act three days after the deadline.
The lawyer said he had miscalculated the filing deadline and asked the court to accept the late request. The Commissioner left the deadline issue to the court and stated that the Social Security Administration otherwise did not object to the requested fees.
The court found that the explanation was not enough to extend the deadline but did not finally decide the fee request. Judge Krause ordered Aida C.’s lawyer to provide a fuller factual explanation by June 24, 2025, or ask that the fee motion be treated as withdrawn.
The detailed version
- Aida C. v. Commissioner Of Social Security Of The United States · No. 7:24-cv-03644
- Andrew Krause
- June 13, 2025
Background
Aida C. brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) against the Commissioner of Social Security. The parties later submitted a proposed agreement to send the case back for additional administrative proceedings. The court signed that agreement on January 13, 2025, entered judgment in Aida C.’s favor that day, and remanded the case on January 17, 2025.
Aida C.’s lawyer then filed a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), a federal law that can require the United States to pay qualifying fees and expenses to a prevailing party. The motion was filed on April 17, 2025. The court determined that the judgment became final on March 14, 2025, making April 14, 2025, the filing deadline. The motion was therefore three days late.
Legal standard
An EAJA fee application generally must be filed within 30 days after final judgment. The deadline is not jurisdictional, meaning that missing it does not automatically deprive the court of power to consider the request. Courts may apply equitable tolling, which extends a deadline when the applicant has pursued the right diligently and an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.
Aida C.’s lawyer explained only that he had “miscalendared the deadline.” The court stated that an ordinary mistake or simple miscalculation by a lawyer, without more, is not enough to justify equitable tolling. The Commissioner deferred to the court on whether the late filing should be accepted and stated that the Social Security Administration otherwise had no objection to the requested fees.
Ruling
The court found that the explanation provided was insufficient to support extending the statutory deadline. It did not grant or deny the EAJA fee motion at this stage. Instead, the court ordered Aida C.’s lawyer to file, by June 24, 2025, a submission—possibly supported by a sworn declaration—with a more detailed factual explanation for the missed deadline, an explanation of the equitable-tolling standard, and counsel’s best argument for applying that doctrine. Alternatively, counsel could file a letter asking that the fee motion be treated as withdrawn.
Judge Andrew E. Krause’s order therefore left the fee request unresolved pending a further submission or withdrawal request.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.