Goldsmith v. Colvin
- James Oetken
- 1:17-cv-00483
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Goldsmith v. Colvin, Judge Oetken awarded counsel $13,639.63 under Section 406(b) and denied a request for a net fee.
The order directly affects the plaintiff, Ellen Goldsmith, and her attorney, Christopher James Bowes, by awarding counsel $13,639.63 and requiring counsel to remit $6,000 to the plaintiff.
What happened
In Goldsmith v. Colvin, the plaintiff’s attorney asked the court to award attorney’s fees under a federal Social Security fee provision. The order does not discuss the underlying benefits decision.
The court ordered that $13,639.63—25% of the plaintiff’s past-due benefits—be paid to her attorney, Christopher James Bowes. After receiving that amount, the attorney must pay the plaintiff $6,000 in previously awarded Equal Access to Justice Act fees.
Judge J. Paul Oetken also denied the request to direct the Social Security Administration to award only the net fee. The order was entered on July 30, 2020.
The detailed version
- Goldsmith v. Colvin · No. 1:17-cv-00483
- James Oetken
- July 30, 2020
Background
The plaintiff’s attorney, Christopher James Bowes, submitted a memorandum and affirmation requesting attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). The opinion addresses the fee request and does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute.
Court’s ruling
The court ordered that $13,639.63 be remitted to counsel. The amount represents 25% of the past-due benefits awarded to the plaintiff. The order further directed counsel, upon receiving the fee, to remit $6,000 to the plaintiff, representing previously awarded fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The court denied counsel’s request that the Social Security Administration be directed to award only the net fee. The order cited a prior Southern District of New York decision that refused a similar request.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the attorney-fee request to the extent reflected in the order and denied the request for a net fee. Because this was an ancillary fee proceeding rather than a decision on the underlying benefits claim, it is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.