LARESE

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. involving the United States; (4) the position of the United States must not have been substantially justified; and (5) there must be no special circumstances that would make the award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1) & (2); Comm’r, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158 (1990). Considering the motion, and with no opposition, the Court finds all conditions of EAJA have been met. EAJA fees are determined under the “lodestar” method—the number of hours reasonably expended on the matter multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Jean v. Nelson, 863 F. 2d 759, 773 (11th Cir. 1988). The resulting fee carries a strong presumption of reasonableness. City of Burlington v. Daque, 505 U.S. 557, 562 (1992). After review of the services provided, the Court finds the hours expended by the attorneys that worked on this case are reasonable. (Doc. 20-1, Doc. 20-4.) EAJA fees are “based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of services furnished,” not to exceed $125 per hour unless the Court determines an increase in the cost of living, or a special factor justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Thus, determining the appropriate hourly rate is a two-step process. The Court first determines the prevailing market rate; then, if the prevailing rate exceeds $125.00, the Court determines whether to adjust the hourly rate. Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F. 2d 1029, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1992). The prevailing market rates must be determined according to rates customarily charged for similarly complex litigation and are not limited to rates specifically for social security cases. Watford v. Heckler, 765 F. 2d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir. 1985). For his attorneys, Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $234.95 and $240.00. (Doc. 29-1.) After review, and considering the rates are uncontested, the Court finds they are reasonable. Plaintiff also filed an “Attorney Fee Contract.” (Doc. 20-2.) It provides: “I hereby assign any court awarded EAJA attorney fees and costs, for federal court work only, to my attorney.” (U/d.) But Plaintiff acknowledges that after awarding EAJA fees, the Commissioner will determine whether he owes a federal debt to the Government. If no debt is owed, the Government will accept Plaintiff's assignment, and the fees will be paid directly to counsel. Thus, the fees awarded should be paid directly to counsel if the United States Department of Treasury determines that no federal debt is owed by Plaintiff. It is thus ORDERED: Plaintiff's Unopposed Petition for EAJA Fees (Doc. 20) is GRANTED, and the Court awards Plaintiff $7,154.60 in attorney fees. This award will be paid directly to Plaintiffs counsel if the United States determines that no federal debt is owed by Plaintiff. ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on October 5, 2023.