Waddell v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Dennis Dye Waddell, No. CV-20-00983-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a stipulation of the parties that Plaintiff be awarded 16 attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). The stipulation states: 17 “This stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Dennis Dye Waddell’s request for 18 EAJA attorney fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of 19 Defendant under the EAJA or otherwise.” (Doc. 24 at 2). 20 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained: 21 Pursuant to the EAJA, we are required to award [Plaintiff] fees and other expenses incurred in connection with his civil action unless we find that the 22 position of the United States was “substantially justified” or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 23 The test for determining whether the Secretary’s position was substantially 24 justified under the EAJA is whether the position had a reasonable basis in both law and fact—that is, whether it was justified “to a degree that could 25 satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988); see also Barry v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 1324, 1330 (9th Cir. 1987). The 26 burden is on the Secretary to prove that his position was substantially justified. Id. 27 Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1991). 28 The Government agreeing to fees while simultaneously not agreeing to Plaintiff’s 1 || entitlement to fees creates a somewhat inconsistent record. 2 Nonetheless, applying the test as articulated in Russell, the Court finds that the 3 || Government has failed to prove that its position was substantially justified. 930 F.2d at 1445. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to fees. Therefore, 5 IT IS ORDERED granting the stipulation (Doc. 24) such that fees and expenses in 6|| the amount of $3,050.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and $400.00 in costs in as 7\| authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are awarded subject to the terms of the Stipulation. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Order, the Commissioner: (1) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that 1s subject to offset under the Treasury || Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then 11 || the check for the fees awarded herein will be made payable to Plaintiff's attorney pursuant || to the assignment executed by Plaintiff. However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and any remaining Equal Access to Justice Act fees after offset will 15 || be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff but delivered to Plaintiff's attorney. 16 Dated this 21st day of April, 2021. 17 18 i C 19 James A. Teilborg 20 Senior United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-