Machuca v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-06027
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Machuca v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Schofield granted counsel’s motion for $7,745.40 in Equal Access to Justice Act fees.
Michelle Machuca and her counsel, and the Commissioner of Social Security.
What happened
In Machuca v. Commissioner of Social Security, Michelle Machuca’s counsel asked for $7,745.40 in fees under a federal law that allows certain fees when a party successfully litigates against the government. The request covered 35.3 hours at $218 per hour and 0.5 hours at $100 per hour.
The court said the filings substantially supported the requirements for these fees, including that Machuca was the successful party, the government’s position was not sufficiently justified, no special circumstances made an award unfair, and the request was timely and itemized. The government did not file a response.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion for attorneys’ fees. The order does not state whether the fees are payable directly to counsel or to Machuca.
The detailed version
- Machuca v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-06027
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 17, 2022
Background
On February 14, 2022, counsel for Michelle Machuca filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute that can require the government to pay a qualifying party’s litigation fees. The motion requested $7,745.40: 35.3 hours at $218 per hour and 0.5 hours at $100 per hour.
Court’s Analysis
The court listed four requirements for an Equal Access to Justice Act fee award: the claimant must be a prevailing party; the government’s position must not have been substantially justified; no special circumstances may make an award unjust; and the fee application must be filed within 30 days of final judgment and supported by an itemized statement. The court found that counsel’s memorandum and affidavits substantially supported all four requirements. The government did not file a response by the deadline set in the court’s March 1, 2022, order. The court also noted that other courts in the district had found similar hourly rates and reported hours reasonable.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees be granted. The order does not specify whether payment should be made directly to Machuca or to her counsel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.