(SS) Samuel v. Commissioner or Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TINA JEWEL SAMUEL, Case No. 1:23-cv-00308-CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON APPLICATION AND JOINT STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF 13 v. ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, U.S.C. § 2412(d) 15 Defendant. (Doc. 24) 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ application and joint stipulation for award of 18 attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 19 24). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Tina Jewel Samuel 20 (“Plaintiff”), Josephine M. Gerrard, in the amount of $9,000 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. Id. 22 On November 6, 2023, the Court entered an order on the parties’ stipulation to grant 23 voluntary remand and remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings 24 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 22). Judgment was entered the same day. 25 (Doc. 23). On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulated motion for attorney fees. 26 (Doc. 24). 27 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. Id.; see 1 sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request 2 is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 4 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 5 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 6 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 7 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 8 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are no special circumstances that would make 9 an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. (Doc. 10 24). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 12 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-2726 DAD, 2014 WL 13 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 14 Plaintiff requests an award of $9,000.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 24). The Ninth Circuit 15 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 16 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876- 17 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rate for the 18 first half of 2023 ($242.78).1 (Doc. 24 at 7-9). Counsel for Plaintiff asserts she has worked a 19 total of 45.5 hours. Id. The Court has reviewed counsel for Plaintiff’s pleadings and the docket 20 and finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney reasonably 21 would need to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (over 2277 22 pages) and preparing a motion for summary judgment raising four issues for review. (Docs. 12, 23 14, 24). Further, counsel for Plaintiff stipulates to a $2,046.48 discount resulting in a $9,000 24 award. 25 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 26 Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 2 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 24) is 5 GRANTED; and 6 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 7 the amount of $9,000.00. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 8 make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs counsel, Josephine M. Gerrard, in accordance with 9 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 10 [T IS SO ORDERED. 11} Dated: _ January 10, 2024 | □□ D 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28