(SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICA TABAREZ GUZMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-00514-CBD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO 28 13 v. U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. 27) 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Introduction 19 Pending before the Court is the motion pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 20 (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for award of attorney’s fees by Jonathan O. Peña (“Counsel”) of 21 Peña & Bromberg, PC, for Plaintiff Monica Tabarez Guzman’s (“Plaintiff”), filed on March 22, 22 2022. (Doc. 27).1 Counsel seeks an award in the amount of $14,153.43. Id. at 1. Defendant 23 Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) did not file an opposition, statement of non- 24 opposition, or otherwise respond; thus, Plaintiff’s motion is deemed unopposed. See Local Rule 25 230(c) (“A failure to file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non- 26 opposition to the motion.”). Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion for 27 attorney’s fees will be granted. 1 Background and Discussion 2 On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Social Security Complaint against Defendant. (Doc. 3 1). On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed a brief in support of remand raising five legal issues for 4 review in this Court. (Doc. 20). On February 19, 2021, Defendant filed an opposition and 5 Plaintiff filed a reply on March 8, 2021. (Docs. 22, 24). On December 22, 2021, the Court issued 6 an order granting remand of this action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and 7 entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Docs. 25-26). 8 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party for work 9 performed in 2020 through 2022. (Doc. 27-1); see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 10 (1993) (concluding that a party who prevails in a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 11 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 12 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner did not oppose the requested relief. 13 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 14 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 15 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 16 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 17 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id.; see Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 18 2013) (the government has the “burden to show that its position was substantially justified.”). 19 Here, the government has not opposed or otherwise responded to counsel’s motion for attorney 20 fees. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to EAJA fees, provided that such fees 21 are reasonable. 22 Under the EAJA, attorney fees must be reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Perez- 23 Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff requests an award of $14,153.43 24 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 27). In the attorney declaration and exhibit filed in support of the motion, 25 Counsel identifies three hours of work performed in 2020, 59.65 hours of work performed in 26 2021, and 3.75 hours of work performed in 2022. (Doc. 27-1 at pp. 2-3). The Ninth Circuit 27 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 1 (9th Cir. 2005). Assuming Counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rates for work 2 performed in 2020 ($207.78), 2021 ($217.54), and 2022 ($234.95),2 the total requested award for 3 the hours Counsel attests to having spent in connection with the litigation falls slightly below the 4 Ninth Circuit’s allowed statutory maximum rate. 5 The Court has reviewed the docket and Counsel’s itemization of the services rendered and 6 finds the request appropriate and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney reasonably 7 would need to have spent on this action. (Doc. 27-1). Specifically, Counsel reviewed a 8 voluminous certified administrative record (1,250 pages) and prepared an overlength brief in 9 support of remand and reply brief raising five issues for review. (Docs. 12, 20, 24). With respect 10 to the results obtained, Counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further 11 administrative proceedings. (Docs. 25-26). 12 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury 13 Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the 14 Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not 15 subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted 16 to Plaintiff’s Counsel. 17 Conclusion and Order 18 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to EAJA, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) (Doc. 27), is 20 GRANTED; and 21 22 Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank 23 24 25 26 27 2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 2 the amount of 14,153.43. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 3 make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel Jonathan O. Pefia of Pefia & Bromberg, 4 PC, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the 5 motion. 6 | I IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: _ July 27, 2023 | Wr bo UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28