(SS) Litt 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 PARMINDER KAUR LITT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00995-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT1 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING (Doc. No. 23) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for the award and payment of 19 attorney fees filed on August 8, 2022. (Doc. No. 23). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s 20 fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of $6,296.94 pursuant 21 to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and costs for filing fees in the 22 amount of $400.00 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Id.). 23 On May 17, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 24 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 25 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 19). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 26 No. 20). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 10). 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. 23). 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)C1)(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 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,296.94 in EAJA fees and $400.00 in costs. (Doc. No. 13 | 23). The Court finds an award of $6,296.94 in attorney’s fees and $400.00 in costs is appropriate. 14 | EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 15 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner 16 | determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 17 || allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 19 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 23) is GRANTED. 20 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 21 | the amount of $ $6,296.94 in attorney fees and expenses and $400.00 in costs for filing fees. 22 | Unless the Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government 23 | shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with 24 | Plaintiffs assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. °° | Dated: _ August 22, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 6 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