Janes v. Berryhill
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-05054
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Janes v. Berryhill, Judge Daniels deferred ruling on the request to extend the deadline for an Equal Access to Justice Act fee petition.
Sean Janes and the Commissioner of Social Security; the court's order governed the briefing schedule for Janes's fee motion and deferred request for an extension.
What happened
Janes v. Berryhill concerns Sean Janes's request to extend the deadline for filing a request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The government opposed extending the deadline, stating that the papers filed on time did not include required information.
The government said the fee request was due October 30, 2019, and argued that Sean Janes had not shown grounds for extending that deadline. It asked the court to allow both sides to submit fuller written arguments instead of ruling immediately on his letter request.
Judge Daniels deferred ruling on the letter request until the fee motion was fully briefed. The court set deadlines for Sean Janes's supporting memorandum, the government's opposition, and any reply.
The detailed version
- Janes v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-05054
- George Daniels
- Dec. 14, 2019
Background
Sean Janes requested an extension of the deadline to file a motion for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can allow certain successful parties to seek fees from the government. The government stated that the fee motion was due on October 30, 2019. It said that, at 10:17 p.m. that day, Janes filed a notice of motion and a declaration from another case, but that the filing did not include information the government considered essential to a fee petition, including whether Janes was a prevailing party, whether he was eligible for an award, and the amount sought with supporting time and hourly-rate information.
Arguments about extending the deadline
The government argued that extending the statutory deadline required equitable tolling. Equitable tolling is an extension of a deadline when the person seeking it shows that he pursued his rights diligently and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. The government maintained that similar Social Security fee requests had been denied and opposed tolling the deadline. It proposed that the court allow full briefing on the fee motion, with Janes filing a supporting memorandum and the government filing opposition papers.
Court’s action
The court deferred ruling on Janes's letter motion until the motion for Equal Access to Justice Act fees was fully briefed. The court ordered Janes to file a memorandum of law by December 30, 2019; the government to file opposition papers by January 17, 2020; and any reply papers by January 24, 2020. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the fee motion or the request to extend the deadline.
Identification note
The supplied case metadata identifies the judge as George Daniels and the case as Janes v. Berryhill. The opinion text itself identifies the matter as Sean Janes v. Commissioner of Social Security and addresses the endorsement to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. The summary uses the supplied judge metadata while noting the discrepancy.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.