(SS) Casares 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 NOAH JAMES CASARES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01506-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. No. 20) SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for attorney fees filed on June 7, 2022. 18 (Doc. No. 20). The parties agree to an award attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, 19 Francesco Benavides, in the amount of $8,000.00 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 20 (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 21 On May 17, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Remand 22 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 23 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 18). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 24 No. 19). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 25 & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 26 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 27 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 28 (Doc. No. 20). 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.” Jd. 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 $8,000.00 in EAJA fees and Court finds the award is 9 | appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the 10 | Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the 11 || Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not 12 || subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted 13 | to Plaintiff's counsel. 14 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 15 1. Plaintiff's stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 20) is 16 | GRANTED. 17 2. Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in the 18 | amount of $ 8,000.00 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury 19 | determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to 20 | Plaintiff's counsel, Francesco Benavides, in accordance with Plaintiffs assignment of fees and 21 || subject to the terms of the stipulated motion. | Dated: _ June 10, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 23 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 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