Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 22, 2021

Raphael v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:18-cv-06120
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Raphael v. Commissioner, Judge Karas granted requests to pause the fee motion and extend the response deadline.

Who this affects

Plaintiff’s attorney-fee motion and Defendant’s deadline to respond were affected; the court’s order paused the fee motion and extended the response deadline.

What happened

Raphael v. Commissioner of Social Security concerns a request for attorney’s fees after the Social Security case. Plaintiff told the court that the agency was considering fees for the administrative representative, which could affect the amount available for the requested court-awarded fees.

Plaintiff asked the court to pause consideration of the fee motion until the agency decided the administrative representative’s fees. Plaintiff also planned to provide updates every 60 days.

Judge Kenneth Karas granted Plaintiff’s request and stayed consideration of the fee motion. He also granted Defendant’s request to extend its response deadline until two weeks after Plaintiff reports the approved administrative fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Raphael v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:18-cv-06120
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Jan. 22, 2021

Background

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). Plaintiff informed the court that the administrative representative had filed a separate fee petition with the agency seeking $11,751.75. Plaintiff stated that, if the agency approved that petition in full, only $3,357.50 would remain from the benefits withheld for fees, and Plaintiff’s court fee motion would be withdrawn.

Plaintiff asked the court to stay, or temporarily pause, consideration of the fee motion until the agency determined the administrative representative’s fees. Plaintiff also requested permission to file a status report every 60 days.

Rulings

Judge Kenneth Karas granted Plaintiff’s application and stayed consideration of Plaintiff’s attorney’s-fee motion, identified as ECF No. 25, pending determination of the administrative representative’s fee amount. Plaintiff was directed to provide status updates every 60 days, with the first update due March 23, 2021.

The court also granted Defendant’s letter motion, identified as ECF No. 32. The court extended Defendant’s deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s fee motion until two weeks after Plaintiff informed the court of the amount of the administrative representative’s approved fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 32. The order did not decide whether Plaintiff was entitled to the requested attorney’s fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.