(SS) Rocha 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 PHILLIP ANTHONY ROCHA, Case No. 1:20-cv-00613-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 34) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 34). The 19 parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff Phillip Anthony Rocha1 20 (“Plaintiff”), Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of $9,000.00 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 21 2412(d). Id. Plaintiff does not seek reimbursement for costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 22 On July 25, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 23 remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 24 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 32). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 33). On October 25 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulated motion for attorney fees. (Doc. 34). 26 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. Id.; see 27 1 On March 27, 2023, the Court granted a Motion to Substitute Party and substituted Gail 1 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who prevails in a 2 sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request 3 is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 4 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 5 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 6 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 7 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 8 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 9 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are no special circumstances that would 10 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated 11 request. (Doc. 34). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at 12 *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified 13 in view of the Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 14 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 15 Plaintiff requests an award of $9,000.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 34). The Ninth Circuit 16 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 17 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876- 18 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly 19 rate for the first half of 2023 ($242.78),2 the requested award would amount to approximately 20 37 hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court has 21 reviewed the docket and finds this amount reasonable and commensurate with the number of 22 hours an attorney reasonably would need to have spent in this case, particularly considering the 23 administrative record which spans over 870 pages, a motion for summary judgment brief that 24 raises four issues for review, and the drafting of a reply brief. (Docs. 12, 18, 22). With respect 25 to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case 26 for further administrative proceedings. (Docs. 32-33). 27 2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited October 26, 1 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury 2| Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the 3 | Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise 5 | transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 34) is 8 GRANTED; and 9 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 10 the amount of $9,000.00. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government 11 shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance 12 with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. !3 | rr Is SO ORDERED. 14 | } Ko Dated: _ October 30, 2023 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28