(SS) Gabriel E. Sandoval 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 GABRIEL EZEKIEL SANDOVAL, Case No. 1:21-cv-01141-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. 19) 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 22, 2022. (Doc. No. 19). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and 20 costs to Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of $3,400.00 in attorney fees 21 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On August 26, 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. 17). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25 No. 18). 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. 9). 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. 19). 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 $3,400.00 in attorney fees is 13 || appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the 14 | Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the 15 || Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not 16 || subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted 17 | to Plaintiff's counsel. 18 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 19 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED. 20 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 21 | the amount of $3,400.00 in attorney fees. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that 22 | Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the EAJA fees to □□□□□□□□□□□ 23 | counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the 24 | terms of the stipulated motion. °° | Dated: _ November 23, 2022 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 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