Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2023

Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:22-cv-10270
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityFee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security, Magistrate Judge Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to Guzman’s request for attorney’s fees.

Who this affects

Victor M. Guzman and the Commissioner of Social Security; the Commissioner was required to respond to Guzman’s attorney-fee motion.

What happened

Victor M. Guzman sued the Commissioner of Social Security under a federal law allowing court review of benefit denials. The parties later agreed to send the matter back to the Commissioner for further review.

Guzman then asked for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The opinion does not decide whether he should receive fees or how much.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond by December 8, 2023, including whether the requested fees would be an improper windfall.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-10270
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Nov. 22, 2023

Background

Victor M. Guzman filed the action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a denial of Social Security benefits. The court approved a stipulation and agreement by the parties remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further review.

On November 20, 2023, Guzman moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, a federal statute that can authorize fee awards in qualifying cases.

Order

Because of the Commissioner’s role and expertise in Social Security matters, the court ordered the Commissioner to respond to Guzman’s fee motion by December 8, 2023. The court specifically directed the Commissioner to address whether the requested fees would amount to an impermissible windfall, citing Diberardino v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 17-cv-02868 (PKC), 2020 WL 6746828 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2020).

The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the fee motion. It only orders a response.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.