Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 26, 2022

Rivera Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Andrew Krause
Docket
7:20-cv-07201
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Gonzalo Rivera Garcia v. Commissioner, Judge Krause granted in part and denied in part Rivera Garcia’s attorney-fee motion, awarding $8,283.82.

Who this affects

Gonzalo Rivera Garcia and the Commissioner of Social Security; the ruling determined the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Rivera Garcia under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

What happened

In Gonzalo Rivera Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, and judgment was entered in Rivera Garcia’s favor. Rivera Garcia then requested $8,397.20 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The Commissioner did not oppose the fee request. The court found that the Commissioner had not shown that the government’s position was substantially justified and found no special circumstances making an award unfair. The court found the billed hours reasonable but adjusted the attorney rates for work performed in 2020, 2021, and 2022.

Judge Andrew E. Krause granted in part and denied in part Rivera Garcia’s motion and awarded $8,283.82 in fees. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rivera Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 7:20-cv-07201
Judge
Andrew Krause
Date
May 26, 2022

Background

The court had previously approved the parties’ agreement to send the matter back to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Clerk entered judgment in Gonzalo Rivera Garcia’s favor on January 6, 2022.

Rivera Garcia moved for $8,397.20 in attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal law that can require the United States to pay a prevailing party’s reasonable litigation fees unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make an award unfair. The Commissioner did not oppose the motion or request additional time to respond. The court found the motion timely.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that, because the Commissioner did not oppose the request, the court could not find that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified. The court also was not aware of any special circumstances that would make an award unjust.

Rivera Garcia’s request covered 37.6 hours of attorney work at $222 per hour and 0.5 hours of paralegal work at $100 per hour. The court found the total hours reasonable based on the issues presented, counsel’s experience, and the quality of the representation. It also found the paralegal rate reasonable.

The court determined that the attorney work should be compensated using separate cost-of-living-adjusted rates for each year. It applied rates of $212.40 per hour for 2.7 hours worked in 2020, $219.45 per hour for 34.3 hours worked in 2021, and $222 per hour for 0.6 hours worked in 2022. It also approved $50 for the 0.5 hours of paralegal work.

Disposition

Judge Andrew E. Krause granted in part and denied in part Rivera Garcia’s motion for attorney’s fees. The court awarded $8,283.82 and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 29.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.