(SS) Johnson 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 MARK JOHNSON, Case No. 2:19-cv-02001-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting ECF No. 33 Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice 18 Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). ECF No. 33. He seeks fees in the amount of $16,922.75 19 based on 79.25 hours of work performed between 2019 and 2022: one hour of work in 2019 at the 20 statutory-maximum rate of $205.25, 31.25 hours in 2020 at the statutory-maximum rate of 21 $207.78, and 47 hours of work in 2021 and 2022 at the statutory-maximum rate for 2021 of 22 $217.54. See ECF No. 33 at 3-6.1 23 The EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United States should be awarded 24 fees and other expenses incurred by that party in any civil action brought by or against the United 25 States, “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 26 that special circumstances make an award unjust directs the court to award a reasonable fee.” 28 27 1 Although plaintiff’s counsel attests that he performed 24 hours of work in 2022, he seeks 28 fees for this work based on the 2021 hourly rate. See ECF No. 33 at 6. 1 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). In determining whether a fee is reasonable, the court considers the hours 2 | expended, the reasonable hourly rate, and the results obtained. See Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 3 | U.S. 154 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th 4 | Cir. 1998). “[E]xcessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” hours should be excluded from a 5 | fee award, and charges that are not properly billable to a client are not properly billable to the 6 | government. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 7 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action. See ECF Nos. 31 &.32. Furthermore, the 8 | government has not filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion and therefore has failed to show that 9 | its position was substantially justified. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 10 | 2001) (holding that the burden of establishing substantial justification is on the government). The 11 | court has independently reviewed the record and finds that both the hourly rate and hours 12 || expended are reasonable in light of the results obtained. 13 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 14 1. Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 33, is granted. 15 2. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA in the amount of 16 | $16,922.75. 17 3. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any payment shall be made payable 18 | to plaintiff and delivered to plaintiff's counsel, unless plaintiff does not owe a federal debt. If the 19 | United States Department of the Treasury determines that plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, 20 | the government shall accept plaintiffs assignment of EAJA fees and pay fees directly to 21 | plaintiffs counsel. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ December 13, 2022 q——— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28