(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEBRA GARCIA, Case No. 1:21-cv-00630-HBK1 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting (Doc. No. 25) Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 filed on August 15, 2022. (Doc. No. 25). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and 19 expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Michelle Jordana Shvarts of the Disability Advocates Group, in 20 the amount of five thousand four hundred and seventeen dollars and zero cents ($5,417.00) 21 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On July 21, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 23 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 24 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 23). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25 No. 24). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 26 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 27 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 13). 28 1 | & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 2 | 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 3 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 4 | (Doc. No. 26 at 1). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 6 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 8 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 9 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 10 || substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 11 | award unjust. 12 Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $5,417.00 is appropriate. EAJA 13 | fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program 14 | (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines 15 | upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed 16 | under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED. 19 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 20 | the amount of five thousand four hundred and seventeen dollars and zero cents ($5,417.00) in 21 || attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a 22 | federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Michelle 23 | Jordana Shvarts of the Disability Advocates Group, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of 24 | fees and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. °° | Dated: _ August 22, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28