Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyaffidavitmotion
litigationattorneymotion

Related Cases

Holsey v. Commissioner of Social Security, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2015 WL 8479301
View Case »
Harlan v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 7015706
View Case »
Litton Industries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 89 T.C. No. 75, 89 T.C. 1086, Tax Ct. Rep. (CCH) 44,357
View Case »
Helvering v. Sprouse, 318 U.S. 604, 63 S.Ct. 791, 87 L.Ed. 1029, 144 A.L.R. 1335, 43-1 USTC P 9363, 30 A.F.T.R. 1087, 1943 C.B. 1035
View Case »
Asiatic Petroleum Co., Delaware, Limited, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 79 F.2d 234, 35-2 USTC P 9547, 16 A.F.T.R. 610, 1936-1 C.B. 181
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gunther v. Commissioner of Social Sec., 943 F.Supp.2d 797

Facts

Kristy B. Gunther, through her attorney Kirk B. Roose, filed a motion for attorney fees under the EAJA after successfully obtaining social security benefits. Gunther requested $5,012.35 in attorney fees and $32.50 in expenses, which included fees for work performed by Roose and his appellate assistant. The Commissioner of Social Security responded to the motion, and the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Greg White for a report and recommendation.

Gunther filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA requesting fees in the amount of $5,012.35 and $32.50 for expenses. (ECF No. 21 at 3.) This sum includes $4,792.35 for 25.8 hours of work performed by Roose—a rate of $185.75.

Issue

Whether Gunther is entitled to an award of attorney fees and expenses under the EAJA, and if so, what amount is reasonable.

Whether Gunther is entitled to an award of attorney fees and expenses under the EAJA, and if so, what amount is reasonable.

Rule

Under the EAJA, attorney fees awarded shall be based on prevailing market rates, and fees may exceed the statutory cap of $125 per hour if justified by an increase in the cost of living or special factors.

Under the EAJA, the amount of attorney fees awarded shall be based upon the prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services furnished, except that '… attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.' 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented by Gunther to support her request for a higher hourly rate than the statutory cap. It found that Gunther provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits from other attorneys and market surveys, to justify an upward departure from the cap. The court also determined that the hours expended by Gunther's attorney were reasonable and that the requested expenses were appropriate.

The Court finds that accessing the referenced records is not 'unduly burdensome,' as Gunther specifically cited previous cases wherein the exact issue was in contention and retrieving them through the Court's electronic filing system is relatively easy.

Conclusion

The court granted in part and denied in part Gunther's motion for attorney fees, awarding a total of $6,314.94, which included fees for attorney work, expenses for copying, and a reduced rate for the appellate assistant's work.

It is recommended that Gunther's Application for Attorney Fees should be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, it is recommended that Gunther be awarded $6,106.44 for 33.7 hours of attorney work, $176.00 for the services of Roose's appellate assistant, and $32.50 for copying expenses—an aggregate sum of $6,314.94.

Who won?

Kristy B. Gunther prevailed in the case as the court awarded her attorney fees and expenses under the EAJA, finding her claims adequately supported.

The party seeking attorney's fees bears the burden of proving that he is an eligible and prevailing party, while the Commissioner must prove that the government's position was 'substantially justified.' It is undisputed that Gunther is an eligible and prevailing party, as the Commissioner has not argued that her litigation position was substantially justified.

You must be