Cheryl J. v. Saul
- Tony Leung
- 0:18-cv-01292
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Cheryl J. v. Saul, Judge Leung granted Cheryl J.’s fee petition and awarded $8,443.60 for work in her Social Security case.
Cheryl J. received an award of $8,443.60 in attorney fees, subject to offset by any preexisting debt she owes the United States; the Commissioner’s objection to the requested fee amount was rejected.
What happened
In Cheryl J. v. Saul, the court considered Cheryl J.’s request for attorney fees after an earlier order partly granted and partly denied both sides’ summary-judgment motions and sent the matter back to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.
The Commissioner objected to the amount of time claimed, arguing that 35 hours was reasonable instead of the 41.8 hours requested. The court found reasonable the time spent preparing the federal lawsuit, reviewing the administrative record, researching and writing the opening brief, and having local counsel review filings.
Judge Tony N. Leung granted the fee petition and awarded $8,443.60 in attorney fees, based on 41.8 hours at $202 per hour, subject to offset for any existing debt Cheryl J. owes the United States. The court also stated that any request to reimburse a filing fee was denied because no filing fee had been paid.
The detailed version
- Cheryl J. v. Saul · No. 0:18-cv-01292
- Tony Leung
- May 20, 2020
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Cheryl J.’s motion for summary judgment, granted in part and denied in part Andrew Saul’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings. Cheryl J. then petitioned for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the United States to pay reasonable litigation fees when a party prevails in a civil action against the government.
Cheryl J.’s counsel requested payment for 41.8 hours at $202 per hour, totaling $8,443.60. The Commissioner did not argue that the government’s position was substantially justified or that special circumstances made a fee award unfair. Instead, he argued that some of the claimed time was unreasonable and maintained that 35 hours, totaling $7,070, was appropriate.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected the challenge to two hours of work performed before the complaint was filed. It distinguished work performed in administrative proceedings from work preparing to file a federal lawsuit. The court also found reasonable the time counsel spent becoming familiar with the administrative decision and consulting with Cheryl J., because counsel had not represented her during the earlier administrative proceedings.
The court also rejected the challenge to the 31.8 hours spent reviewing the administrative transcript, identifying issues, conducting legal research, and preparing Cheryl J.’s opening brief. The court explained that the transcript’s length did not determine how much research and briefing time was reasonable. It also found that the issues involving opinion evidence and residual functional capacity were not unreasonable merely because they commonly arise in Social Security cases. The court declined to reduce the award because some cited cases were older or because parts of the brief resembled counsel’s earlier briefs.
The court further found reasonable the 2.30 hours spent by local counsel reviewing 13 filings. It determined that this time was consistent with local counsel’s obligations under the District of Minnesota’s local rules.
Ruling
The court found that 41.8 hours at $202 per hour, totaling $8,443.60, was reasonable. It therefore granted the petition for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act and awarded Cheryl J. $8,443.60 in reasonable attorney fees, subject to offset by any preexisting debt she owes the United States.
The opinion also states that, to the extent the petition sought reimbursement of a $400 filing fee, that request was denied because Cheryl J. had been allowed to proceed without paying a filing fee. The order otherwise granted the attorney-fee petition.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.