Abigail Hope Hengerer v. Commissioner of Social Security

Hengerer · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division · January 16, 2026 · No. 6:25-cv-01382-DCI

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted in part an unopposed motion for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court awarded $9,802.00 in attorney fees and $405.00 in costs, but denied requests for direct payment to counsel and $12.00 in paralegal fees for electronic filing.

Holdings

  1. The requested attorney fees of $9,802.00 and costs of $405.00 were recoverable and reasonable under the EAJA.
  2. The request for an order authorizing direct payment of the EAJA award to Plaintiff's counsel was denied because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her assignment complied with the Anti-Assignment Act.
  3. The request for $12.00 in paralegal fees was denied because the motion did not establish that the fees were appropriate or reasonable, and electronic filing through CM/ECF was a ministerial, nonlegal task included in attorney overhead rather than compensable paralegal legal work.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to recover the requested attorney fees and costs under the EAJA.
  2. Whether the court could direct payment of the EAJA award directly to Plaintiff's counsel when Plaintiff had not shown that the assignment complied with the Anti-Assignment Act.
  3. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to recover paralegal time for electronically filing a memorandum of law through CM/ECF.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (8)

  • Crumbley v. Colvin, 2014 WL 6388569, at *4-5 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 14, 2014)(followed)
  • Huntley v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 6:12-cv-613-Orl-37TBS, 2013 WL 5970717, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2013)(followed)
  • Colegrove v. Barnhart, 435 F. Supp. 2d 218, 220 (W.D.N.Y. 2006)(not persuasive)
  • Stewart v. Sullivan, 810 F. Supp. 1102, 1109 (D. Haw. 1993)(not persuasive)
  • Cross v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 2020 WL 9810009, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2020)(followed)
  • Fox v. The Marquis Corp., 2010 WL 1010871, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2010)(followed)
  • In re Bicoastal Corp., 121 B.R. 653, 655 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990)(followed)
  • Smith v. Richard's Restoration, Inc., 2006 WL 3898182, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2006)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…