Harrington v. Saul
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-04148
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Harrington v. Saul, Judge Hamilton granted Harrington’s fee motion and awarded $11,739.83 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Steven Harrington receives the $11,739.83 fee award directly unless there is evidence of a valid assignment; the award remains subject to an administrative offset for outstanding federal debt.
What happened
In Harrington v. Saul, Steven Harrington challenged the Social Security Administration’s decision that he was not eligible for disability benefits. The court had earlier granted Harrington’s summary-judgment motion in part and denied Andrew Saul’s cross-motion in its entirety. Harrington then requested attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a law that can require the government to pay fees to a successful party.
Saul did not argue that the government’s position was substantially justified or that special circumstances made an award unfair. Instead, he argued that Harrington’s requested fees were unreasonable because counsel billed too many hours, billed clerical work at an attorney rate, and recorded short entries for routine tasks. Saul requested a 50-percent reduction. The court found the 51.8 hours reasonable, but reduced the request by $41.56 for clerical work billed at an attorney rate.
The court also approved $543.85 for 2.5 hours spent preparing Harrington’s reply on the fee motion. Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the motion and awarded $11,739.83 in attorneys’ fees. Unless there is evidence of a valid assignment, the award must be paid directly to Harrington and may be reduced through an administrative offset for outstanding federal debt.
The detailed version
- Harrington v. Saul · No. 4:20-cv-04148
- Phyllis Hamilton
- July 29, 2022
Background
Steven Harrington appealed a Social Security Administration decision finding him ineligible for disability benefits. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 14, 2022, the court granted Harrington’s motion in part and denied Andrew Saul’s motion in its entirety. Harrington later moved for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), initially seeking $11,237.54.
Legal standard
The EAJA generally requires an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses to a prevailing party in a qualifying civil action against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unjust. The government bears the burden of showing substantial justification. The court also has discretion to determine whether the hours and rates requested are reasonable, but it may not impose a fixed hour limit on Social Security cases merely because they are considered routine.
Analysis
Saul did not argue that the government’s position was substantially justified or that special circumstances barred an award. The parties agreed that Harrington’s counsel’s hourly rates—$207.78 for 2020 and $217.54 for 2021 and 2022—were reasonable.
Saul challenged the amount requested on three grounds: the 51.8 hours billed were excessive, counsel billed clerical work at an attorney rate, and counsel billed 0.1-hour entries for perfunctory tasks. Saul sought a 50-percent reduction.
The court rejected the challenge to the 51.8 hours. It found no basis to question counsel’s declaration or to deem the case too routine to justify the requested time, particularly because Social Security cases may involve complex legal issues and lengthy administrative records. The court also found the 0.1-hour entries reasonable because they involved tasks such as reviewing orders, decisions, and an answer and were not shown to be vague, redundant, or perfunctory.
The court agreed that 0.2 hours of clerical work had improperly been billed at an attorney’s rate. It reduced the requested award by $41.56. The resulting amount of $11,195.98 was reasonable. The court separately approved $543.85 for 2.5 hours spent preparing Harrington’s reply brief on the fee motion, because EAJA permits recovery for time spent litigating the fee request.
Disposition
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted Harrington’s motion for attorneys’ fees and awarded $11,739.83. Unless there is evidence of a valid assignment, the fee award is payable directly to Harrington, subject to any administrative offset for outstanding federal debt.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.