(SS) Martinez 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 DEBORAH MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-00160-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. 37) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, ORDER MOOTING EARLIER FILED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES 16 Defendant. (Doc. No. 36) 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 20 filed on December 3, 2023. (Doc. No. 37). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and 21 expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña of Peña & Bromberg, PLC, in the amount of 22 $9,200.00 in attorney fees and expenses, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 23 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). The stipulated motion filed on December 3, 2023 moots Plaintiff’s 24 earlier filed motion seeking $13,372.12. (Doc. No. 36). 25 //// 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. 35). 28 1 On August 21, 2023, this Court remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 2 § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 32). Judgment 3 was entered the same day. (Doc. No. 33). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the 4 prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 5 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a 6 sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner 7 does not oppose the requested relief. 8 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 9 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 10 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 11 unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 12 make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was 13 substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 14 award unjust. 15 Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $9,200.00 in attorney fees and 16 expenses is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under 17 the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If 18 the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not 19 subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted 20 to Plaintiff’s counsel. 21 //// 22 //// 23 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 24 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 37) is GRANTED. 25 2. Plaintiff’s earlier filed motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 36) is MOOT. 26 3. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 27 the amount of $9,200.00 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury 28 determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the EAJA 1 | fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia of Pefia & Bromberg, PLC, in accordance with 2 | Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. 3 4 Dated: December 4, 2023 ooo. Zh. fared Hack 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28