Opinion
19-cv-3257
09-15-2021
WALTER LEE DAWDY, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.
OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
The Plaintiff's Petition for Award of Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d/e 25) and Amended Motion filed as an Amended Document (d/e 26) (collectively Motion for Attorney Fees) are ALLOWED. The Court has reviewed the Motion for Attorney Fees and finds the request for $8, 719.78 in attorney fees and $450.00 in expenses for the filing fee to be reasonable and appropriate for this case. Defendant objects to the Motion for Attorney Fees because the fees are excessive. Commissioner's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Petition for Award of Attorney's Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (d/e 27). The Court disagrees and finds the fees to be reasonable in this case. In future cases brought by counsel for Plaintiff, however, counsel's billing detail in support of a fee request must list separately for each attorney the time expended and the work performed by each attorney. The billing detail attached to the Motion for Attorney Fees in this case combines the work of several attorneys into a single entry without setting forth the work done by each attorney and the time expended by each attorney. The amount sought in this case is reasonable, however, so the Court will not require a revised billing detail in this case.
This Court awards Plaintiff $9, 169.78, consisting of $8, 719.78 in attorney fees and $450.00 in costs (the “Award”). The Award fully and completely satisfies any and all claims for fees, costs, and expenses that may have been payable to Plaintiff in this case under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
The Award belongs to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff may, and has, assigned his right to the Award to his attorney Sutterfield Law Offices, P.C. See Amended Motion filed as an Amended Document (d/e 26), attached Fee Agreement. The United States may also take an offset against the Award to satisfy any pre-existing debts that Plaintiff owes the United States. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the United States determines that the Award is not subject to offset for such debts, Defendant shall pay the Award to the law firm of Sutterfield Law Offices, PC.