[Jose A.] v. Comm’r of Soc., No. 6:21-CV-1909-EJK, 2023 WL 5352308 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2023)

[Jose A.] v. Comm’r of Soc., No. 6:21-CV-1909-EJK, 2023 WL 5352308 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2023) (Decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Embrey J. Kidd, by consent)

Briefs Included:

• Memorandum in Support of Petition for Attorney Fees
• Plaintiff’s EAJA Reply 

Topics addressed:

• EAJA - substantial justification

• EAJA - reasonableness of hours - briefing time

• EAJA - reasonableness of hours - pre-filing time

• EAJA - reasonableness of hours - EAJA time

• EAJA - reasonableness of hours - Total time

• EAJA - hourly rate
  

Rulings cited: none

Issues briefed:
1)  Whether the government’s position was substantially justified such that no fees should be awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

2) Whether the fees sought under the EAJA are excessive.

Court decision:
The court first addressed the issue of whether the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified, noting that:

The Commissioner has the burden of proof to demonstrate it was ‘substantially justified’ in both law and fact . . . . United States v. Jones, 125 F.3d 1418, 1425 (11th Cir. 1997). The government’s position is substantially justified under the EAJA when it is ‘justified to a degree that would satisfy a reasonable person’ — i.e. when it has a reasonable basis in both law and fact.” Id. (quoting United States v. Douglas, 55 F.3d 584, 588 (11th Cir. 1995)).

2023 WL 5352308, at*2.  The court stated that this case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings “because records during the relevant time period had not been translated from Spanish to English.” Id. The Commissioner “conceded that some records had not been translated but asserted that such failure was harmless error.” Id. The court “emphasized the ALJ’s obligation to develop a full and fair record and was not persuaded by the Commissioner's argument that a failure to translate the documents was not prejudicial.” Id.

The court rejected the Commissioner’s assertion that “case law states that the Commissioner may be affirmed even where gaps exist in the record” because “the Court made a finding of prejudice.” Id. As the court noted, the “record contained evidentiary gaps due to the presence of untranslated Spanish records during the relevant period, and it was prejudicial because the records were relevant to Plaintiff's mental issues.” Id. Thus, the court held that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified as to the first issue. Id. And the court did not reach the second, third, or fourth issues presented by Plaintiff, and “therefore, does not find substantial justification as to these issues either.” Id. “The Commissioner does not point to any authority that requires the Court to substantively review the remaining issues raised by the Commissioner in determining whether its position was substantially justified despite a finding of reversible error as to one or more other issues.” Id.

Next, the court addressed whether amount of fees requested amount was reasonable. Id. at *3. As the Commissioner “did not object to the amount of fees,” the court considered that portion of Plaintiff’s Motion for EAJA fees as unopposed. Id. The court noted that the EAJA “requires that the amount of attorney's fees be ‘reasonable,’ which is determined by the ‘prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished.’" 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “The party requesting fees has the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of the fee and the number of hours expended.” Id. (citing Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988); Watford v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir. 1985)). Fees may also be awarded for the “number of hours it took to prepare the EAJA request in its request for fees.” Id. (citing Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d 759, 779-80 (11th Cir. 1988), aff’d, 496 U.S. 154 (1990)).

The court found that the amount of time spent was reasonable, stating:

Plaintiff’s attorney expended 3.85 hours in 2021, 35.5 hours in 2022, and 18.0 hours in 2023, for a total of 57.35 hours in EAJA-related representation in this case. (Docs. 39-2 at 11; 45-1.) After reviewing a description of the activities performed in relation to this matter, the Court determines that 57.35 hours is reasonable in this case. The majority of time was spent preparing Plaintiff’s memorandum in support of her position. (Doc. 39-2 at 19.) Plaintiff’s counsel spent the remaining hours on other tasks such as preparing the instant Motion. (Id.) Moreover, although the Court’s decision reached only one issue that Plaintiff raised, ample authority exists to support awarding fees for all work done on the case. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (allowing for attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party unless the court finds that the government was substantially justified or other special circumstances exist); cf. Myers v. Sullivan, 916 F.2d 659, 666–67 (11th Cir. 1990) (finding that in order for the government’s position to be substantially justified, “all of the government’s arguments” must possess a reasonable basis). Additionally, the Commissioner does not offer argument opposing the reasonableness of the fee award in this case (see Doc. 42), and the undersigned does not find that Plaintiff raised frivolous issues or otherwise failed to focus the issues before the Court.

Id. The court awarded EAJA fees of $13,327.33. Id. at *14.