Padilla v. Colvin
Bernaldino Padilla |
Carolyn W. Colvin |
7:2015cv09312 |
November 25, 2015 |
US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
White Plains Office |
Orange |
Vincent L. Briccetti |
Lisa Margaret Smith |
Disability Insurance |
42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 40 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Attorney Fees. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. In a retainer agreement dated October 23, 2015, plaintiff agreed that his attorney, Philip H. Seelig, Esq., would be entitled to a contingency fee equal to 25% of all retroactive or past due social security benefits awarded to him and any auxiliary beneficiaries, to be paid from such past due benefits upon an administrative finding favorable to plaintiff following a district court remand. Pla intiff did obtain a favorable administrative finding after remand to the Social Security Administration from this Court. This Court previously approved an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $7,500.00 plus $400.00 in costs, und er the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"), paid by the agency. The requested award of $16,173.30 is within the statutory maximum of 25% of past due benefits awarded. Moreover, given the amount of time and effort counsel expended in this Court in his successful appeal of an earlier denial of benefits, as well as the fact that the requested fee reflects the contingent nature of the recovery, the Court finds that the fee request is reasonable. See Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U .S. 789, 804-08 (2002). The Court awards attorney's fees in the amount of $16,173.30 to be paid from funds withheld from the past due benefits awarded to plaintiff by the Social Security Administration. Accordingly, plaintiff's counsel is directed to remit to plaintiff the previous EAJA award of $7,500.00. The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion. (Doc. #37). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 12/28/2020) (mml) |
Filing 31 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for 30 Report and Recommendation. The R&R is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED. (Doc. #19). Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. (Doc. #23). The case is REMANDED to the Social Security Administration for further administrative proceedings consistent with the R&R, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four. The Clerk is instructed to enter Judgment accordingly and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Vincent L. Briccetti on 7/26/2018) (mml) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Padilla v. Colvin | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Bernaldino Padilla | |
Represented By: | Philip Howard Seelig |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin | |
Represented By: | John E. Gura, Jr |
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.