(SS) Thompson v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA NOVELLE THOMPSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-00815-HBK1 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. No. 22) SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 filed on August 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 22). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to 19 Plaintiff’s attorney, Josephine M. Gerrard of Gerrard Law Offices, of $8,500.00 pursuant to the 20 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 21 On July 15, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a remand and 22 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 23 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 20). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 24 No. 21). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 25 & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 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. 10). 28 1 | 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 2 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 3 | (Doc. No. 22). 4 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 5 } civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 6 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 7 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 8 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 9 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 10 | award unjust. 11 Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $8,500.00 is appropriate. EAJA 12 | fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program 13 | (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines 14 | upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed 15 || under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 22) is GRANTED. 18 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 19 | the amount of $8,500.00 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury 20 | determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to 21 | Plaintiff's counsel, Josephine M. Gerrard of Gerrard Law Offices, in accordance with □□□□□□□□□□ 22 | assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. 23 24 Dated: _ October 28, 2022 oe Zh. Sareh Back 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 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