(SS) Hurst 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 SANDRALEE MARY HURST, Case No. 1:22-cv-00235-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. 16) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 19 filed on November 21, 2022. (Doc. No. 16). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and 20 costs to Plaintiff’s attorney, Melissa Newel, in the amount of $6,759.51 in attorney fees, and 21 $402.00 in costs, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On August 25, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a remand and 23 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 24 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 14). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25 No. 15). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 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. 8). 28 1 | & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 2 | 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 3 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 4 | (Doc. No. 16). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 6 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 8 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 9 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 10 || substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 11 | award unjust. 12 Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $6,759.51 in attorney fees and 13 | $402.00 in costs is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed 14 | under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 15 | (2010). Ifthe Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA 16 | fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise 17 || transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 19 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and costs (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED. 20 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 21 | the amount of $6,759.51 in attorney fees and $402.00 in costs. Unless the Department of 22 | Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the 23 || EAJA fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, Melissa Newel of Newel Law, in accordance with Plaintiffs 24 | assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. °° | Dated: _ November 22, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28