Rasheen L. Butts v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------x RASHEEN L. BUTTS, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 24-CV-8334 (EK) -against- FRANK BISIGNANO, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,1 Defendant. ------------------------------------x ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge: On July 29, 2025, the parties jointly moved for an attorney’s fee award of $9,300 payable to Plaintiff’s counsel under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 14. The parties did not attach any time records and used multiple hourly rates. Accordingly, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. Docket Order dated August 5, 2025. Later that day, the parties moved once again, correcting these errors. ECF No. 15. On August 12, in connection with the Court’s contemplation of a modest reduction of attorney’s fees, the Court directed Plaintiff’s counsel to submit a statement explaining any unusual features or complexity of this case. Docket Order dated August 1 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 7, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Bisignano is substituted for Carolyn Colvin, former acting Commissioner of Social Security, as the defendant in this suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g) (“Any action instituted in accordance with this subsection shall survive notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Commissioner of Social Security or any vacancy in such office.”). 12, 2025. On August 25 Plaintiff’s counsel so filed. ECF No. 16. In Social Security disability cases, a district court may “conclude that excessive or inadequate billing warrants some reduction” in EAJA fees. Vincent v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 651 F.3d 299, 308 (2d Cir. 2011).2 Given the record here, a tenpercent reduction of EAJA fees — amounting to $930.00, for a net award of $8,370.00 — is appropriate. Plaintiff’s counsel expended nearly forty attorney hours — significantly more than the mean and median for recent fee applications to this Court — and despite the fact that the administrative record here, at 1,001 pages, was meaningfully shorter than average. The $9,300 fee request is the largest amount billed in any social security case in which this Court has presided, save for ones that raised sufficiently complicated issues that the Court authorized page extensions to briefing. Plaintiff’s counsel’s letter explains his approach to social security disability cases generally, as well as billing practices. See ECF No. 16. However, it does not identify any special complexity that would justify the significant time spent on this matter, including roughly thirty hours spent on the supporting brief. See ECF No. 15-2. Here, “the facts and legal 2 Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal quotation marks. issues in this case were not so novel or complex as to justify the time requested for preparation of the supporting brief.” Goff v. Astrue, No. 09-CV-1392, 2013 WL 12110399 , at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2013) (reducing 24.3-hour request for time spent writing social security brief by one-third). Additionally, the parties jointly moved to remand, which Plaintiff’s counsel might have sought before proceeding to the multiple rounds of brief editing that he reports. Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in block billing, with no individual time entry spanning fewer than 6.3 hours. ECF No. 15-2. While these entries include detail about counsel’s tasks, block billing has “frustrated meaningful review of the reasonableness of the claimed hours.” Hines v. City of Albany, 613 F. App’x 52, 55 (2d Cir. 2015) (affirming 30% reduction in attorney’s fees). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s counsel shall be awarded $8,370.00 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. SO ORDERED. /s/ Eric Komitee ERIC KOMITEE United State s District Judge D ated: November 19, 2025 Brooklyn, New Yor k