(SS) Bone 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 BRODRICK BONE, Case No. 2:20-cv-00615-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. 27. Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees in the 19 amount of $6,133.41 for the following: 19.25 hours of attorney work in 2020 at the statutory- 20 maximum hourly rate of $207.78; 9.25 hours of attorney work in 2021 at the statutory-maximum 21 hourly rate of $217.54; and .5 hours of attorney work in 2023 at the statutory-maximum hourly 22 rate of $242.78.1 Id. 23 The EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United States should be awarded 24 fees and other expenses incurred by that party in any civil action brought by or against the United 25 States, “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 26 1 In the motion, plaintiff requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,081.45 for 28.75 27 hours of attorney work performed during 2020, 2021, and 2023. Counsel’s declaration, however, reflects a total of 29 hours of attorney work. Accordingly, the court adjusted the fee request to 28 correspond to 29 hours of attorney work. 1 | that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In determining 2 | whether a fee is reasonable, the court considers the hours expended, the reasonable hourly rate, 3 | and the results obtained. See Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 4 | 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 1998). “[E]xcessive, redundant, or 5 | otherwise unnecessary” hours should be excluded from a fee award, and charges that are not 6 | properly billable to a client are not properly billable to the government. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 7 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action. See ECF Nos. 25, 26. Furthermore, the 8 | government does not oppose plaintiffs motion.” The court has independently reviewed the 9 | record and finds that both the hourly rate and hours expended are reasonable in light of the results 10 | obtained. 11 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 12 1. Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 27, is granted. 13 2. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees under the EAJA in the amount of $6,133.41. 14 3. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), and absent an assignment of EAJA 15 | fees, any payment shall be made payable to plaintiff, subject to offset if plaintiff has any federal 16 | debts. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( — Dated: _ November 7, 2023 Q—— 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 5 a . . The government filed a response to plaintiff's motion asserting that because counsel 27 | does not have an assignment from plaintiff for EAJA fees (see ECF No. 27 at 1 n.2), the fees must be made payable to plaintiff subject to any offset if plaintiff owes a federal debt. The 28 | government, however, does not oppose plaintiff's fees request. ECF No. 29. 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