495 F. App'x 845
9th Cir.2012Background
- Neil challenged the district court’s denial of Social Security disability benefits in district court and prevailed.
- Neil moved for $4,998.69 in EAJA attorney’s fees based on 26.5 hours by lead counsel and a junior attorney.
- The district court awarded $4,411.65 after a $587.04 downward adjustment for clerical tasks, vague and inadequately explained entries, and block billing.
- Neil filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend, which the district court denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Under EAJA, prevailing parties may recover fees unless the government’s position was substantially justified, and any award must be reasonable; district courts may haircut hours by up to 10% for discretion and need not fully detail every entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly reduced fees for clerical tasks | Neil contends the clerical reductions were improper | The government argues clerical tasks are non-compensable at attorney rates | Yes; district court did not abuse discretion in excluding clerical work |
| Whether the .3-hour reduction for vague August 12, 2011 entry was proper | Neil argues the entry was adequately explained | The government asserts overall lack of detail justifies reduction | Yes; reduction for vagueness warranted |
| Whether a 10% block-billing/quarter-hour reduction was proper | Neil argues the hours were reasonable despite block billing | The government supports dismissal or reduction due to block billing | Yes; district court’s 10% cut was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the district court’s standards of review were correctly applied | Neil asserts correct standard should guide reasonableness review | The government contends abuse-of-discretion review applies | Yes; court applied appropriate abuse-of-discretion standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court may reduce fees for lack of detail)
- Brandt v. Astrue, No. 08-0658-TC, 2009 WL 1727472 (D. Or. 2009) (up to 10% haircut permitted; detailed billing not always required)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard; reasonableness review of hours and rate)
- Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (detailed billing required to support hours charged)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (fee applications must be supported by records identifying hours reasonably expended)
- Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court may reduce hours billed in block format)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (attorney may not seek reimbursement for purely clerical tasks at attorney rate)
- Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2009) (clerical tasks should be subsumed in overhead)