Downing v. Berryhill
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:17-cv-04768
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Downing v. Berryhill, Judge Gorenstein scheduled a conference to address fee procedures and whether the petition was timely.
The parties and attorneys in Downing v. Berryhill, particularly plaintiff Robert Downing and the attorneys involved in the administrative and federal-court fee claims.
What happened
Downing v. Berryhill concerns a pending dispute over attorney-fee procedures related to a Social Security award. The order does not describe the underlying benefits decision or decide the fee dispute.
The court scheduled a telephone conference for September 1, 2020, and directed the parties to explain how fees awarded at the administrative and federal-court levels are determined and divided. The parties also had to file Downing’s Notice of Award, and plaintiff’s counsel had to report on the status of a planned fee petition.
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein did not rule on the petition’s timeliness or award fees in this order. He issued directions for the conference and required filing of the specified document.
The detailed version
- Downing v. Berryhill · No. 1:17-cv-04768
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Aug. 28, 2020
Background
The order concerns a pending Social Security matter involving Robert Downing and the Commissioner of Social Security. The court stated that it needed information to determine whether the fee petition was timely under Sinkler v. Berryhill, 932 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2019). The order does not explain the underlying benefits claim or state the amount of any award or fees.
Court’s directions
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein scheduled a telephone conference for September 1, 2020, at 11:00 a.m. The court directed the parties to explain the procedures and law governing attorney-fee awards at the administrative level and in federal court. Specifically, the parties were to address how money withheld from a Social Security award for attorney fees is divided between those two types of fee claims.
The court also directed the parties to file the Notice of Award sent to Downing by August 31, 2020. The order notes that plaintiff’s attorney had mistakenly attached the Clerk’s Judgment instead of the Notice of Award. Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to be prepared to report any known information about the status of the administrative-level fee petition that Gabriel J. Hermann had represented he would file.
Disposition
This is a procedural order. Judge Gorenstein scheduled the conference and issued filing and reporting directions; he did not decide whether the petition was timely, determine how the fees should be divided, or award or deny fees. The order also includes instructions about public access to the telephone conference, recording, speakerphones, and adjournment requests.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.