(SS) Gonzales 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 TERI LYNN GONZALES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01269-AWI-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES 13 v. UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. No. 21) 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for the award and payment of 19 attorney fees filed on December 6, 2022. Doc. No. 21. The parties agree to an award of 20 attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of $6,600.00, 21 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On September 7, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to remand 23 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative 24 proceedings. Doc. No. 19. Judgment was entered the same day. Doc. No. 20. Plaintiff now 25 requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. 26 Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) 27 (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a 28 prevailing party). 1 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 2 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 3 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 4 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 5 || make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was 6 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 7 | award unjust. 8 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,600.00 in EAJA attorney fees and expenses. Doc. No. 9 | 21. The Court finds an award of $6,600.00 in attorney’s fees and expenses is appropriate. EAJA 10 | fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program 11 | (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner 12 || determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 13 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 15 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. 16 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 17 | the amount of $6,600.00 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury 18 | determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to 19 | Plaintiffs counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and 20 | subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 73 || Dated: _December 7, 2022 —= : : — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28