Summary
denying attorney's fees for reply brief that restated arguments contained in original motion as "unnecessary and redundant"
Summary of this case from Taggert-Jeffries v. AstrueOpinion
CIVIL ACTION 02-CV-125
November 6, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Barbara Williams ("Williams") brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c)(3) on behalf of her daughter Barbara S. Kale ("Barbara"), to review the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner"), terminating Barbara's supplemental social security income ("SSI") under Title XVI of the Social Security Act ("Act"), 42 U.S.C. § 1381-1383f, On August 29, 2003, this court remanded the case to the Commissioner for additional fact finding. The plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ("EAJA"). The Commissioner objects to the request, arguing that the number of hours plaintiff's counsel claims to have spent on the case is unreasonable,
In our Memorandum and Order, we determined that the ALJ failed to conduct a full and fair administrative hearing because ha conducted too short and superficial an examination of Barbara. On remand, in addition to conducting a more thorough examination of Barbara, the ALJ is required to produce tangible and objective evidence that Barbara's mental capacity has improved.
We shall grant the plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees. However, we shall reduce his compensate hours because they are excessive.
Procedural History
Barbara and her mother originally appeared without representation before an ALJ on July 28, 2000, following a continuing disability review at which Barbara was found ineligible for benefits because she was no longer disabled. In an opinion dated December 20, 2000, the ALJ affirmed the administrative decision terminating Barbara's benefits, Williams, with the assistance of her present attorney, filed a request for review of the ALJ's opinion with the Appeals Council, After the appeal was denied on December 11, 2001, Williams commenced this action on January 9, 2002, Following the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment, the plaintiff filed a reply brief reiterating many of her original arguments, After Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi issued his Report and Recommendation, the plaintiff filed objections repeating many of the same arguments originally set forth In the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. On August 29, 2003, this case was remanded to the Commissioner.Attorney's Fees
Though the administrative proceedings in this matter have not yet concluded, a remand order pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a final judgment for purposes of the EAJA, entitling the prevailing party to recover attorney's fees, See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1991), The Commissioner does not dispute that plaintiff's counsel, pursuant to the EAJA, is entitled to an hourly rate of $147.48. Hence, the focus of our inquiry is the reasonableness of the hours expended by plaintiff's counsel.
A fee petition Is required to be specific enough to allow the district court to determine the reasonableness of the hours claimed for the work performed, Washington v. Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1037 (3d Cir. 1996), The petition should include some fairly detailed information about the hours devoted to various general activities, Rode v. Dellarcipreta, 892 F.2d 1177, 1190 (3d Cir. 1990).
Counsel submitted a comprehensive time sheet explaining the services completed and the time spent on each task, The court must decide whether the hours claimed were reasonably expended for each of the particular purposes described and then exclude those that are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary," Public Interest Group of NJ., Inc. v. Windall, 51 F.3d 1179, 1188 (3d Cir 1995) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34(1983)).
The Commissioner challenges the time spent on three tasks, First, plaintiffs counsel requests compensation for one hour for preparing a motion for an enlargement of time to file her motion for summary judgment. The one page motion contains four simple averments. The Commissioner correctly asserts that a motion for an enlargement of time is a clerical activity that is solely for the plaintiffs own benefit and caused by counsel's own delay. In his reply to the Commissioner's response, plaintiffs counsel cannot recall the reason for the delay. Accordingly, the Commissioner should not bear the cost of this administrative act.
The Commissioner objects to counsel's request of four hours for the preparation and filing of the plaintiffs reply brief to the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment. The reply brief is a reiteration of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment with little additional argument. Counsel included identical case cites and argument in the reply brief which had been included in the original motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, we find the reply brief was both unnecessary and redundant.
Finally, the Commissioner argues that the 16.25 hours counsel expended in preparing objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be reduced. Throughout this case, the plaintiff has consistently raised the same arguments, utilized the same legal support and explained the deficiencies in the ALJ's decision in similar, if not identical, language to the summary judgment motion, The hours claimed to have been spent in drafting the objections to the Report and Recommendation are unreasonable and excessive. Consequently, they will be reduced by 8.25 hours.
Conclusion
Though this court remanded this matter, the ultimate result is uncertain. Nevertheless, we may award counsel fees, However, we agree with the Commissioner that the hours expended were unreasonable. Therefore, we shall reduce the total compensable hours by 13.25, leaving 43 compensate hours at an hourly rate of $147.48 for a total sum of $6,341,64,
ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2003, upon consideration of the Petition for Attorney's Fees Pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act and Costs of Litigation (Document No. 20), the Commissioner's response, and the petitioner's reply, it is ORDERED that the Social Security Administration shall pay to Stephen H. Skale, Esquire, attorney's fees in the amount of $6,341.64, within 30 days of this order.