Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 8, 2024

Anderson v. Saul

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-01952
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityFee Petition
In one sentence

In Anderson v. Saul, Judge Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to Denise Anderson’s Social Security attorney-fee motion without deciding it.

Who this affects

Denise Anderson’s request for attorney’s fees and the Commissioner of Social Security, which was ordered to respond to that request.

What happened

In Anderson v. Saul, Denise Anderson asked the court to review the denial of her Social Security benefits. The parties later agreed to send the matter back to the Social Security Commissioner for further review, and Judge Ronnie Abrams approved that agreement.

On January 4, 2024, Anderson moved for an award of attorney’s fees under federal law. The opinion does not state the amount requested or decide whether she was entitled to fees.

Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond by January 19, 2024, including addressing whether the requested fees would be an improper windfall. The order therefore directs a response but does not grant or deny the fee motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Anderson v. Saul · No. 1:21-cv-01952
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Jan. 8, 2024

Background

Denise Anderson filed the action on March 5, 2021, under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), seeking judicial review of a denial of Social Security benefits. On November 30, 2021, Judge Ronnie Abrams approved the parties’ agreement to remand the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further review.

Fee Motion

On January 4, 2024, Anderson filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)(1)(A). The opinion does not state the amount requested.

Order

Because of the Commissioner’s role and expertise in Social Security matters, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the Commissioner to respond to the fee motion by January 19, 2024. The response must address whether the requested fees would amount to an impermissible windfall. The order did not grant or deny the fee motion.

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.