Tennille S. v. Kijakazi

Background

Tennille S. sought judicial review of the denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. In the earlier related case, the parties agreed to send the matter back to the agency for a new decision, and the court approved an award of $10,000 in Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fees to Tennille S.’s counsel.

After a new administrative hearing and an unfavorable decision, Tennille S. again sought review in federal district court. She moved for summary judgment, and the Commissioner of Social Security filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. On January 6, 2023, the court granted Tennille S.’s motion, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded the case for immediate payment of benefits under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Tennille S. later requested $18,561.05 in attorney fees and no costs under the EAJA. The Commissioner did not dispute that Tennille S. was entitled to fees or argue that the government’s position was substantially justified. Instead, the Commissioner argued that the requested amount should be reduced by 50% because the hours billed were excessive, redundant, or unnecessary.

Court’s analysis

The court agreed that the hours billed for the summary-judgment motion were excessive. It compared that motion with the motion filed in the earlier related case and found that the briefs were nearly identical in many respects, including their headings, citations to the administrative record, and descriptions of alleged errors. The court concluded that the duplicative work did not justify billing 28.25 hours for what was essentially an update of an existing brief.

Using the EAJA cost-of-living-adjusted rate of $234.95 per hour, the court reduced the summary-judgment-motion fees by 50%, awarding $3,318.67 for that work. The court rejected the requested reduction for the remaining hours, including the time spent on the reply brief. It found that the Commissioner’s arguments about the length and timing of the reply did not sufficiently explain why those hours were excessive.

Disposition

Judge Susan Illston granted in part and denied in part Tennille S.’s motion for EAJA attorney fees. The court awarded $15,242.38 in fees and zero dollars in costs. The award is payable to Tennille S.; if the Treasury Department determines that she does not owe a federal debt, the government may pay Bay Area Legal Aid directly under any assignment Tennille S. executed. The opinion states that any payment is subject to the government’s offset process.