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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CURTIS EDWARD MERRIWEATHER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00501-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 13 v. PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 16) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 16). The 19 parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff Curtis Edward Merriweather 20 (“Plaintiff”), Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of $801.17 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 21 2412(d). Id. Plaintiff does not seek reimbursement for costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 22 On September 11, 2023, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and on the 23 parties’ stipulation, the Court remanded this case to the Commissioner for further 24 administrative proceedings. (Doc. 14). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 15). On 25 October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulated motion for attorney fees. (Doc. 16). 26 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. Id.; see 27 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who prevails in a 1 is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 2 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 3 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 4 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 5 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 6 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 7 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are no special circumstances that would 8 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated 9 request. (Doc. 16). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at 10 *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified 11 in view of the Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 12 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 13 Plaintiff requests an award of $801.17 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 23). The Ninth Circuit 14 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 15 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876- 16 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly 17 rate for the first half of 2023 ($242.78),1 the requested award would amount to approximately 18 three hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court has 19 reviewed the docket and finds this amount reasonable and commensurate with the number of 20 hours an attorney reasonably would need to have spent in this case, particularly considering its 21 resolution at an early phase. With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a 22 favorable judgment remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. (Docs. 14-15). 23 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury 24 Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the 25 Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not 26 subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited October 12, 1 | transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 16) is 4 GRANTED; and 5 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 6 the amount of $801.17. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 7 make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with 8 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 9 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 13, 2023 | Word bo ll UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28