Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 9, 2022

Lallu v. Berryhill

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:18-cv-00420
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Fee PetitionSocial Security
In one sentence

In Lallu v. Berryhill, Judge Gorenstein awarded $4,849.09 in Social Security attorney fees and required counsel to refund $4,489.15 to Lallu.

Who this affects

Urmila Devi Lallu and her attorney; the order authorizes payment of $4,849.09 in attorney fees and requires counsel to refund $4,489.15 to Lallu.

What happened

In Lallu v. Berryhill, Urmila Devi Lallu asked the court to approve attorney fees under the Social Security Act and federal law. Her lawyer filed the request, and no one opposed it.

The court found the requested fee reasonable. It authorized an award of $4,849.09 and directed Lallu’s lawyer to refund $4,489.15 to Lallu after receiving payment.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered the order on February 9, 2022. The opinion does not describe the underlying Social Security dispute or explain the fee calculation in further detail.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lallu v. Berryhill · No. 1:18-cv-00420
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Feb. 9, 2022

Request

Urmila Devi Lallu, through her attorney, moved for attorney fees under Section 206(b)(1) of the Social Security Act and 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1). The motion sought payment for the attorney’s work in the Social Security case.

Court’s analysis

No opposition was filed. The court found that the requested fee was reasonable, citing Blizzard v. Astrue, a prior decision from the Southern District of New York.

Ruling

The court authorized an attorney-fee award of $4,849.09 under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). It also ordered Lallu’s counsel to refund $4,489.15 to Lallu upon receiving payment. The opinion does not state the underlying Social Security claim’s disposition or provide additional details about how the amounts were calculated.

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.