Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 6, 2023

Rodriguez v. Kijakazi

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:22-cv-05135
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Fee PetitionSocial SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. Kijakazi, Judge Willis granted counsel $7,581.14 in fees and ordered repayment of fees previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Reyna Rodriguez and her counsel were affected. Counsel received authorization for $7,581.14 in fees, subject to reimbursing Plaintiff for any EAJA fees previously received; the award was to come from withheld past-due benefits.

What happened

In Rodriguez v. Kijakazi, the court considered Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for attorney’s fees after the case had been sent back to the Social Security Commissioner and counsel had already received $3,500 under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The court found the fee request timely because a three-day mailing period applied. It also found the requested $7,581.14 reasonable for 18.3 hours of work, based on counsel’s efficiency, the six-month representation, the result achieved, and the uncertainty of the appeal.

Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted the motion, awarded Petitioner $7,581.14, and directed Petitioner to reimburse Plaintiff for any fees previously received under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rodriguez v. Kijakazi · No. 1:22-cv-05135
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Sept. 6, 2023

Background

The court had remanded the matter to the Social Security Commissioner on December 6, 2022. It later approved a $3,500 attorney’s-fee award to Plaintiff’s counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). After receiving an award notice dated August 14, 2023, counsel filed a motion on August 29, 2023, seeking additional fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Counsel sought $7,581.14 based on a retainer agreement providing for fees equal to 25% of Plaintiff’s past-due benefits, subject to the combined fees of all attorneys remaining within that 25% limit. The Commissioner had withheld $22,581.48 from past-due benefits and counsel stated that administrative counsel intended to seek $15,000. Counsel reported spending 18.3 hours on the representation.

Timeliness

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), which generally requires a § 406(b) fee motion to be filed within 14 days after judgment. Although counsel filed the motion 15 days after the date on the award notice, the court held that the three-day mailing period made the motion timely.

Reasonableness of the Fees

The court evaluated whether the requested fee was reasonable and whether it would create an improper windfall. It considered counsel’s efficiency, the nature and length of the professional relationship, Plaintiff’s satisfaction, and the uncertainty and effort involved in obtaining the favorable result. The court found that counsel efficiently resolved the matter in 18.3 hours, represented Plaintiff for approximately six months before remand, and obtained benefits upon remand. It also found that the requested fee was consistent with other awards in the district.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the motion and awarded Petitioner $7,581.14. It directed Petitioner to reimburse Plaintiff for any fees previously received under the EAJA. The court also requested that the Clerk terminate the motion at Dkt. No. 18.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.