Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

PORRAZZO v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 13-6363. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana Number: infdco20150202810 Visitors: 11
Filed: Jan. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge. Before the Court is an unopposed motion 1 filed by plaintiff for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412. On November 7, 2014, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the denial of plaintiff's disability benefits be reversed. 2 This Court adopted 3 that report and recommendation in its entirety and rendered judgment to that effect on November 24, 2014. 4 Plaintiff's counsel worked for a total of 37.4 hours
More

ORDER

LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.

Before the Court is an unopposed motion1 filed by plaintiff for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. On November 7, 2014, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the denial of plaintiff's disability benefits be reversed.2 This Court adopted3 that report and recommendation in its entirety and rendered judgment to that effect on November 24, 2014.4

Plaintiff's counsel worked for a total of 37.4 hours and is requesting fees at a rate of $175.00 per hour.5 Defendant does not object to either the amount of time or the hourly rate.6 See also, e.g., Dubois v. SSA, No. 13-2438, 2014 WL 6485639, at * (E.D. La. Nov. 18, 2014) (Knowles, M.J.) ("After due consideration of prevailing market conditions and the healthy community of social security practitioners in this area, the Court will . . . accept the hourly rate of $175.00 per hour for this EAJA petition and those filed in the near future."). Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and that defendant shall pay plaintiff's attorney's fees in the amount of $6545.00.

FootNotes


1. R. Doc. No. 17.
2. R. Doc. No. 14.
3. R. Doc. No. 15.
4. R. Doc. No. 16.
5. R. Doc. No. 17-2, at 2. The Court notes that plaintiff's memorandum and defendant's response state that plaintiff's counsel worked for 37.6 hours. R. Doc. No. 17-1, at 4; R. Doc. No. 18, at 1. However, plaintiff's separate itemization of time shows that only 37.4 hours are being claimed. R. Doc. No. 17-2, at 2. The Court has been advised that this discrepancy was the result of a typographical error, and that 37.4 hours is the correct number.
6. R. Doc. No. 18, at 1.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer