Hollis v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-10946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hollis v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Schofield granted Hollis’s motion to alter judgment, found her fee request timely, and set briefing deadlines.
Cheryl Lynn Hollis’s request for attorney’s fees was treated as timely, while the Commissioner of Social Security was given an opportunity to oppose that request. The order did not determine whether fees would ultimately be awarded.
What happened
In Hollis v. Commissioner of Social Security, Cheryl Lynn Hollis sought attorney’s fees under the Equal Justice Act. The court had previously denied her request as late because it was filed 86 days after judgment was entered.
Hollis asked the court to change that decision, arguing that the request was filed within the applicable 90-day period: 60 days for the judgment to become final, followed by 30 days to file the fee request. The Commissioner of Social Security agreed to the requested relief.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to alter judgment to correct a clear error. The court replaced its earlier order, found the fee request timely, and set deadlines for the Commissioner’s opposition and Hollis’s reply; it did not decide the fee request itself.
The detailed version
- Hollis v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:19-cv-10946
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
On January 11, 2021, the court denied Cheryl Lynn Hollis’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute that can allow certain fee awards against the government. The court concluded that the motion was untimely because it was filed 86 days after the Clerk of Court entered judgment.
On January 14, 2021, Hollis filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter the January 11 order. Rule 59(e) allows a court to change a judgment in limited circumstances. Hollis argued that the earlier order correctly stated the governing law but applied it incorrectly. Under the timing rule discussed in the opinion, a fee application must be filed within 30 days after a final judgment, and an unappealed judgment becomes final after 60 days. Hollis therefore argued that the fee motion was timely within the resulting 90-day period. The Commissioner of Social Security consented to the requested relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Rule 59(e) motions and motions asking the court to reconsider a ruling use the same standards. Reconsideration may be appropriate when there is a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness. The decision is left to the district court’s discretion.
The court determined that its January 11 order contained a clear error. Because Hollis filed the attorney’s-fee motion 86 days after the Clerk entered judgment, it fell within the 90-day filing period described in the order.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Hollis’s motion to alter judgment was GRANTED to correct a clear error. The January 22 order superseded the January 11 order at Docket No. 26. The court ordered the Commissioner to file any opposition to the attorney’s-fee motion by February 5, 2021, and Hollis to file any reply by February 12, 2021. The order did not itself award attorney’s fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 27.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.