Jacobson v. Astrue
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:12-cv-08416
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Jacobson v. Astrue, Judge Seibel required more information before deciding whether to enlarge the deadline for Jacobson’s attorney-fee motion.
Gary Jacobson and his lawyer, whose motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) remained undecided pending additional information.
What happened
In Jacobson v. Astrue, Gary Jacobson challenged a recommendation to dismiss his request for attorney’s fees for being late. His lawyer sought fees for representing him in court after seeking separate fees for administrative proceedings.
The court noted that Jacobson received notice of the benefits calculation in June 2018, while the fee motion was filed on January 30, 2020. Jacobson argued that his lawyer reasonably waited for the decision on the administrative fee request before filing the court-fee request.
Judge Cathy Seibel did not decide the fee motion. She directed Jacobson’s lawyer to submit a declaration and supporting documents by June 18, 2020, explaining when he learned the administrative fee request’s outcome and any later delay; without that declaration, the motion will be denied.
The detailed version
- Jacobson v. Astrue · No. 7:12-cv-08416
- Cathy Seibel
- June 3, 2020
Background
The court considered Gary Jacobson’s objection to a report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith. The report recommended dismissing Jacobson’s motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) as untimely unless his lawyer could show that the motion was timely under the governing appellate decision or that circumstances justified extending the deadline.
Section 406(b) concerns fees for representation in court and limits those fees to 25% of a claimant’s past-due benefits. The opinion states that Jacobson received the Commissioner’s notice calculating his benefits in June 2018. His lawyer sought fees under § 406(a) for the administrative proceedings on June 22, 2018, and waited for the result of that request before filing the § 406(b) motion. The Commissioner later sent a letter dated January 26, 2020, stating that $37,906.75 was being withheld from Jacobson’s award in anticipation of a court-authorized attorney’s fee. The § 406(b) motion was filed on January 30, 2020.
Issue
The court explained that the appellate decision discussed in the opinion requires a § 406(b) fee application to be filed within 14 days after receipt of the Commissioner’s benefits-calculation notice, while also recognizing that an extension may be available when the delay was reasonable. Jacobson’s lawyer argued that waiting for the outcome of the § 406(a) application explained the delay. The lawyer’s filings indicated that he learned the outcome sometime in 2019 but did not identify the date.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel did not grant or deny the fee motion at this stage. The court stated that it needed to know when Jacobson’s lawyer was informed of the § 406(a) outcome so it could assess whether the delay before filing the § 406(b) motion was reasonable. The court directed the lawyer to submit, by June 18, 2020, a declaration with relevant documents explaining that date and, if desired, the reason for any later delay. The court stated that if no declaration was submitted, the motion would be denied.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.