Williams v. Kijakazi

District Court, E.D. North Carolina

Williams v. Kijakazi

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:20-CV-00581-M DANIEL L. WILLIAMS SR., Plaintiff, v. ORDER LELAND DUDEK,! Acting Commissioner of Social Security Defendant.

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiffs Petition for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to

24 U.S.C. § 406

(b)(1). [DE 38]. The court finds, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, that the contingency fee sought by Plaintiff's counsel is reasonable in light of the time spent on this matter and the results achieved. 535 U.S.C. 789, 808 (2002). Further, “[t]here is no evidence of delay tactics employed by counsel causing the accumulation of past due benefits” and Plaintiff's filings are “well-supported, evidencing thorough research and application of law to the particular facts of Plaintiff's claim, rather than boilerplate recitations, and resulted in aremand order.” Honeycutt v. Kijakazi, No. 5:20-CV-438-RJ,

2023 WL 8655265

, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2023); see also [DE 30]. For these reasons, pursuant to § 406(b)(1), Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED, and the court AWARDS Plaintiff's counsel, Meredith E. Marcus, attorney’s fees in the gross amount of $26,271.25. The court’s previous award of $5,222.18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA),

28 U.S.C. § 2412

(d), shall partially satisfy this award. Thus, the Commissioner shall pay

' Leland Dudek is automatically substituted as Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

to Ms. Marcus the net balance of $21,049.07 out of Plaintiff's past-due benefits in accordance with agency policy.

SO ORDERED this 2qhk day of April, 2025.

dad E Mian RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown