Mora v. Secretary of Health and Human Services ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •     In the United States Court of Federal Claims
    OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
    No. 13-421V
    Filed: March 24, 2015
    Not for Publication
    *************************************
    G.G.M., a Minor, by and Through her       *
    Guardian Ad Litem, LORENA MORA,           *
    *
    Petitioner,                 *       Interim attorneys’ fees and costs decision
    *
    v.                                       *
    *
    SECRETARY OF HEALTH                       *
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,                       *
    *
    Respondent.                 *
    *
    *************************************
    Danny C. Soong, West Covina, CA, for petitioner.
    Claudia B. Gangi, Washington, DC, for respondent.
    MILLMAN, Special Master
    DECISION AWARDING INTERIM ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1
    On July 21, 2014, the undersigned issued a decision granting petitioner’s motion to dismiss
    her petition, and judgment entered on August 29, 2014. Petitioner filed a motion for relief from
    judgment on January 21, 2015.
    On February 25, 2015, petitioner filed an application for interim attorneys’ fees and costs,
    requesting $36,425.00 in attorneys’ fees and $40,414.85 in attorneys’ costs. The application
    seeks attorneys’ fees and costs for work performed up to September 15, 2014.
    1
    Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the special master’s action in this
    case, the special master intends to post this unpublished decision on the United States Court of Federal
    Claims’s website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 
    116 Stat. 2899
    ,
    2913 (Dec. 17, 2002). Vaccine Rule 18(b) states that all decisions of the special masters will be made
    available to the public unless they contain trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is
    privileged and confidential, or medical or similar information whose disclosure would constitute a clearly
    unwarranted invasion of privacy. When such a decision is filed, petitioner has 14 days to identify and
    move to redact such information prior to the document=s disclosure. If the special master, upon review,
    agrees that the identified material fits within the banned categories listed above, the special master shall
    redact such material from public access.
    On February 27, 2015, the undersigned issued an Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion for
    Relief from Judgment.
    On March 20, 2015, respondent filed a Response to Petitioner’s Interim Motion for
    Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Respondent states that $67,675.00, consisting of $34,075.00 in fees
    and $33,600.00 in costs, is not an unreasonable amount for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
    through September 14, 2014.2 Petitioner’s counsel informed the undersigned’s law clerk via
    email that he does not object to an interim fees and costs award of $67,675.00. Petitioner’s
    counsel also stated that petitioner did not incur any costs in pursuit of her petition.
    The undersigned finds $67,675.00 to be a reasonable amount for attorneys’ fees and costs
    incurred through September 15, 2014. Accordingly, the undersigned awards $67,675.00,
    representing reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this case through September
    15, 2014. The award shall be in the form of a check payable jointly to petitioner and Law Office
    of Danny Soong in the amount of $67,675.00.
    In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the
    court is directed to enter judgment herewith.3
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Dated: March 24, 2015                                                                 s/ Laura D. Millman
    Laura D. Millman
    Special Master
    2
    Respondent incorrectly states that petitioner’s application seeks fees and costs for representation through
    September 14, 2014. Resp. at 1, n.1. The application actually seeks reimbursement for work performed
    through September 15, 2014. Pet’r’s Mot. Fees, at 2, 12.
    3
    Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by each party, either separately or
    jointly, filing a notice renouncing the right to seek review.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-421

Judges: Laura D Millman

Filed Date: 4/14/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021