(SS) Nedashkovskiy v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IRINA NEDASHKOVSKIY, Case No. 2:22-cv-00410-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice 18 Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). ECF No. 22. Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of 19 $3,935.41 based on 16.75 hours of work in 2022 at the corresponding statutory-maximum hourly 20 rate of $234.95. Id. 21 The EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United States should be awarded 22 fees and other expenses incurred by that party in any civil action brought by or against the United 23 States, “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 24 that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In determining 25 whether a fee is reasonable, the court considers the hours expended, the reasonable hourly rate, 26 and the results obtained. See Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 27 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 1998). “[E]xcessive, redundant, or 28 otherwise unnecessary” hours should be excluded from a fee award, and charges that are not 1 | properly billable to a client are not properly billable to the government. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 2 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action. See ECF Nos. 20 & 21. Furthermore, the 3 | government has not filed an opposition to plaintiffs motion and therefore has failed to show that 4 | its position was substantially justified. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 5 | 2001) (holding that the burden of establishing substantial justification is on the government). The 6 | court has independently reviewed the record and finds that both the hourly rate and hours 7 || expended are reasonable in light of the results obtained. 8 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 22, is granted. 10 2. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees under the EAJA in the amount of $3,935.41. 11 3. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any payment shall be made payable 12 | to plaintiff and delivered to plaintiff's counsel, unless plaintiff does not owe a federal debt. Ifthe 13 | United States Department of the Treasury determines that plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, 14 | the government shall accept plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees, see ECF No. 24-1. and pay fees 15 | directly to plaintiffs counsel. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ( q oy — Dated: _ November 7, 2023 q——— 19 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28