Simmons v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the parties' joint motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint supplemental brief including detailed billing statements and attorney qualifications by September 3, 2021.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring supplemental briefing“the Court ORDERS the parties to submit a Joint Supplemental Brief no later than September 3, 2021.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion lacked essential information (billing statement, hours, rates) required to assess the reasonableness of fees under the EAJA. Requiring supplemental briefing is a standard procedural mechanism to allow the court to make an informed decision on the fee petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for EAJA fees and notes the specific deficiency in the current motion (lack of billing data). It imposes a reasonable deadline and specifies the required content for the supplemental briefing. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this procedural order.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLAND S., Case No.: 3:20-cv-01068-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 1 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for the Award and Payment of Attorney 2 ||Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and 3 || Costs Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. ECF No. 25. 4 Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), a litigant is entitled to attorney 5 || fees and costs if: “(1) he is the prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its 6 || position was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; 7 || and (3) the requested fees and costs are reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 8 Cir. 2005). To assess the third factor of whether the requested fees are reasonable, the 9 ||Court assesses whether the hourly rates and number of hours billed are reasonable. See, 10 |le.g., Beatriz B. v. Saul, No. 19cv785-AHG, 2020 WL 5203371, at *2—*3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11 |} 1, 2020); Smith v. Berryhill, No. 17cv2108-CAB-RNB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89885, at 12 ||*5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019); Ulugalu v. Berryhill, No. 17cv1087-GPC-JLB, 2018 WL 13 || 2012330, at *3—*4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018). 14 The parties failed to include a billing statement with their joint motion, or any 15 || information regarding the number of hours billed and at what rates. Since this information 16 essential to the Court’s analysis of the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Court 17 ORDERS the parties to submit a Joint Supplemental Brief no later than 18 ||September 3, 2021. The Joint Supplemental Brief shall include the names, qualifications, 19 || experience, and hourly billing rates of all attorneys and paralegals who worked on this case, 20 ||on the Plaintiff's side. The parties shall also attach Plaintiff's billing statement as an 21 |}exhibit, which should include dates, time spent, attorney or paralegal designation, 22 || description of actions, and totals. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
25 ||Dated: August 31, 2021 Honorable Allison H. Goddard 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28