Laughner v. Berryhill, 3:17-cv-00300-VLB

Plaintiff Shawn Patrick Laughner filed for Social Security disability benefits and sued after denial (case filed Feb 2017).
Court voluntarily remanded the case under sentence four on Dec 21, 2017; SSA later determined Laughner entitled to benefits beginning March 2017.
SSA mailed a benefits-calculation letter on Apr 1, 2019 stating it would withhold $6,884.38 (25% of past-due benefits) for attorney’s fees; an amended fully favorable decision was issued July 19, 2019.
SSA sent a second letter on Nov 25, 2019 confirming the $6,884.38 withholding; counsel filed a §406(b) fee motion on Dec 10, 2019.
Defendant (Acting Commissioner) argued the fee motion was untimely under the Second Circuit’s Sinkler rule requiring §406(b) fee motions within 14 days of notice of benefits calculation; plaintiff’s counsel did not contest timeliness or request enlargement.
The court denied the fee motion as untimely because counsel offered no facts to justify extending the 14‑day filing period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which rule governs the filing deadline for §406(b) fee motions after a sentence‑four remand?	Counsel did not argue a governance point; focused on fee reasonableness.	Rule 54(d)(2)(B)’s 14‑day deadline applies (per Sinkler).	Rule 54 governs; 14‑day limit applies once party receives notice of benefits calculation.
Was the 14‑day period tolled/enlarged here so the Dec 10, 2019 motion is timely?	Counsel presented no facts requesting enlargement or equitable tolling; argued only fee reasonableness.	No grounds for enlargement; motion is therefore untimely.	No enlargement; motion denied as untimely.

Sinkler v. Berryhill, 932 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2019) (holds Rule 54(d)(2)(B)’s 14‑day filing deadline applies to §406(b) fee motions after notice of benefits calculation but district courts may enlarge the period in appropriate cases)