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

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 BRENDA M. ALLEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-0428-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 11 v. ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 12 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, (Doc. 16) 13 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 14 Defendant. _____________________________________/ 15 16 On September 22, 2023, after entry of the parties’ stipulated Order for Voluntary Remand 17 Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Doc. 14), Plaintiff filed a motion for an award of 18 attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of $1,429.06. 19 (See Doc. 16.) On September 25, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant’s opposition, if any, to be filed 20 by no later than October 6, 2023. (Doc.17.) Defendant timely filed a notice of non-opposition (Doc. 21 18); therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s 22 application for EAJA fees is GRANTED. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff filed this action on March 21, 2023, seeking judicial review of a final administrative 25 decision denying her application for Social Security disability benefits. On June 23, 2023, the 26 parties filed a Stipulation for Voluntary Remand Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 27 (the “Stipulation”), which provided that “[u]pon remand, the [ALJ] will further develop the record 28 as necessary, offer the claimant the opportunity for a new hearing and issue a new decision.” (Doc. 1 13.) On June 26, 2023, the Court entered an Order “remand[ing] the action to the Commissioner of 2 Social Security for further proceedings consistent with the terms of the [Stipulation].” (Doc. 14.) 3 On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for EAJA fees, seeking an award of 4 $1,429.06. (Doc. 16.) Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition on October 6, 2023. (Doc. 18.) 5 It is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees under the EAJA that is currently pending before the Court. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 The EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses 8 . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States . . . unless 9 the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special 10 circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 11 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). “It is the government’s burden to show that its position was substantially 12 justified or that special circumstances exist to make an award unjust.” Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 13 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001). 14 A “party” under the EAJA is defined as including “an individual whose net worth did not 15 exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B)(i). The term 16 “fees and other expenses” includes “reasonable attorney fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “The 17 statute explicitly permits the court, in its discretion, to reduce the amount awarded to the prevailing 18 party to the extent that the party ‘unduly and unreasonably protracted’ the final resolution of the 19 case.” Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 987 (9th Cir.1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(C) & 20 2412(d)(2)(D)). 21 A party who obtains a remand in a Social Security case is a prevailing party for purposes of 22 the EAJA. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-01 (1993) (“No holding of this Court has ever 23 denied prevailing-party status . . . to a plaintiff who won a remand order pursuant to sentence four 24 of § 405(g) . . . , which terminates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff”). “An applicant for 25 disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the purposes of the EAJA if the denial of her 26 benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded.” 27 Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1257. 28 /// 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 There is no dispute Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this litigation. The Court finds Plaintiff 3 did not unduly delay this litigation, and Plaintiff’s net worth did not exceed two million dollars when 4 this action was filed. The Court further finds, in view of the Commissioner’s stipulation to the Order 5 of Remand, that the position of the government was not substantially justified. See Knyazhina v. 6 Colvin, No. 2:12-CV-2726 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (finding no 7 substantial justification where the parties stipulated to a remand of the action to the Commissioner 8 for a new hearing) (citing Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (position of the 9 government “includes both the government's litigation position and the underlying agency action 10 giving rise to the civil action.”)); Armstrong v. Astrue, No. CIV S-07-1456 DAD, 2008 WL 11 2705023, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2008). 12 Plaintiff seeks a total award of $1,429.06, comprised of 2.9 hours in attorney time and 5.8 13 hours in paralegal time. (See Docs. 16-3 & 16-4.) Defendant does not oppose this request. (See 14 Doc. 18.) The EAJA provides for an award of “reasonable” attorney fees. 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2412(d)(2)(A). By statute, hourly rates for attorney fees under EAJA are capped at $125 per hour, 16 but district courts are permitted to adjust the rate to compensate for increases in the cost of living.1 17 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1147-49 (9th Cir. 2001); Atkins, 154 18 F.3d at 987. Determining a reasonable fee “requires more inquiry by a district court than finding 19 the ‘product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate.’” Atkins, 154 F.3d 988 (quoting Hensley 20 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). The district court must consider “the relationship between 21 the amount of the fee awarded and the results obtained.” Id. at 989. 22 Here, Plaintiff’s attorney obtained an order remanding the action for further administrative 23 24 1 Pursuant to Thangaraja, 428 F.3d at 876-77, and the Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6, the Ninth Circuit maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized under the EAJA, as adjusted annually to incorporate increases in the cost 25 of living. The rates are found on that court’s website: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum- rates/. Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $242.78 for attorney work performed in 2023. This rate is consistent with the 26 statutory maximum rates as set forth by the Ninth Circuit. 27 Plaintiff is also requesting an hourly rate of $125 per hour of paralegal time, which is within the range of reasonable hourly rates for paralegals in the Fresno Division. See, e.g., Schmidt v. City of Modesto, No. 1:17-cv-01411- 28 DAD-MJS, 2018 WL 6593362, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2018) (“[T]he reasonable rate of compensation for a paralegal 1 action, which is a good outcome for Plaintiff. (Docs. 13 & 14.) There is no indication that a 2 reduction of the award is warranted due to any substandard performance by Plaintiff’s counsel as 3 counsel secured a successful result for Plaintiff. There is also no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel 4 engaged in any dilatory conduct resulting in delay. 5 The claimed total of 2.9 hours in attorney time and 5.8 hours in paralegal time represents a 6 reasonable amount of time for an attorney to expend on this particular matter, see, e.g., Vallejo v. 7 Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-3088 KJN, 2011 WL 4383636, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (declining to 8 “conduct a line-by-line analysis” of billing entries to determine all 62.6 hours of attorney time spent 9 on the litigation were justified), and are well within the limit of what would be considered a 10 reasonable amount of time spent on this action when compared to the time devoted to similar tasks 11 by counsel in like Social Security appeals before this court, Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 12 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting “[m]any district courts have noted that twenty to forty 13 hours is the range most often requested and granted in social security cases”) (citing Patterson v. 14 Apfel, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (collecting district court cases)); see also 15 Thompson v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-01850-AC, 2015 WL 1767733, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015) 16 (finding 63.4 hours to be reasonable); Boulanger v. Astrue, 2:07-cv-0849-DAD, 2011 WL 4971890, 17 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011) (finding 58 hours to be a reasonable amount of time); Valleyjo v. 18 Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-03088 KJN, 2011 WL 4383636, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (finding 62.1 19 hours to be reasonable). 20 Plaintiff will be awarded EAJA fees for 2.9 hours in attorney time and 5.8 hours in paralegal 21 time spent on the litigation, for a total EAJA award in the amount of $1,429.06. 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed 24 motion for EAJA fees is GRANTED in the amount of $1,429.06. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: October 17, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 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