(SS) Mao 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 DANNY MAO, Case No. 1:20-cv-00006-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT AND MOOTING INITIAL MOTION 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. Nos. 28, 29) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s initial motion for an award of attorney fees filed 18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, with supporting 19 declaration (Doc. No. 28); and the parties’ stipulated motion agreeing to a reduced amount of 20 $10,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney Jonathan O. Peña (Doc. No. 29), 21 filed on June 2 and June 8, 2022, respectively. 22 On March 4, 2022, this Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment 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. 26). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 25 No. 27). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 26 & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 27 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 28 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 1 | (Doc. No. 29). 2 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 3 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 4 | U.S.C. § 2412(d))(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 5 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 6 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 7 | substantially justified and the court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 8 | award unjust. 9 Plaintiff requests an award of $10,000.00 in EAJA fees for 61.95 hours of attorney time. 10 | (Doc. No. 28 at 4). The Court finds an award of $10,000.00 is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, 11 | and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as 12 | discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon 13 | effectuation of this Order that Plaintiffs EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under 14 || the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 1. Plaintiff's stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 29) is 17 | GRANTED. Plaintiff's initial motion (Doc. No. 28) is MOOT. 18 2. Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in the 19 | amount of $10,000.00 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury 20 | determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to 21 | Plaintiff's counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and 22 || subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. | Dated: _ June 10, 2022 Mihaw. Mh. Bareh fackte 24 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 35 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 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