McNamara v. Kijakazi
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-07196
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
McNamara v. Kijakazi: Judge Spero denied counsel’s fee motion without prejudice because it lacked required notice and authentication.
The ruling directly affected Jenny McNamara’s counsel’s request for attorney fees and required proof that McNamara was notified of the request.
What happened
In McNamara v. Kijakazi, the plaintiff’s counsel asked for attorney fees under a law governing fees in Social Security cases.
The court found the motion procedurally defective because counsel did not provide proof that Jenny McNamara received notice of the request. The court also required the motion’s attachments to be authenticated and supporting facts to be provided in a sworn declaration when necessary.
Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the fee motion without prejudice, allowing counsel to file another motion that corrects these defects.
The detailed version
- McNamara v. Kijakazi · No. 3:20-cv-07196
- Joseph Spero
- July 28, 2023
Background
Jenny McNamara’s counsel filed a motion seeking attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b), a provision concerning attorney fees in Social Security benefits cases.
Reasons for the Ruling
The court identified procedural defects in the motion. First, counsel was required to provide a statement or proof showing that a copy of the fee motion had been sent to McNamara. Counsel did not provide proof of service, and the court could not determine whether McNamara had received notice.
The court also stated that the materials attached to the motion needed to be authenticated. Authentication means providing a basis to establish that a document is what the filing claims it is. The court directed that the attachments be supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury and that additional factual assertions supporting the motion likewise be included in a sworn declaration when they went beyond facts shown by the exhibits.
Disposition
The court denied the motion without prejudice because it was procedurally defective. The order stated that counsel could refile a fee motion after correcting the identified defects.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.