(SS) Schenewark 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 DAMIAN KARL SCHENEWARK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00683-BAK(HBK) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING (Doc. No. 22) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney fees filed on July 5, 19 2022. (Doc. No. 22). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s 20 attorney, Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of SIX THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED FIFTY- 21 EIGHT DOLLARS and 83/100 ($ 6,558.83) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 22 (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 23 On April 6, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Remand 24 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 25 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 20). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 26 No. 21). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a) 27 & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 28 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 1 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 2 | (Doc. No. 22 at 2-3). 3 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 4 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 5 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 6 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 7 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 8 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 9 | award unjust. 10 The Court finds an award of $6,558.83 is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are 11 | subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue 12 | v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order 13 | that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be 14 | delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 15 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 16 1. The parties’ stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 22) is 17 | GRANTED. 18 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 19 | the amount of SIX THOUSAND FIVE-HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT DOLLARS and 83/100 20 | ($6,558.83) in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that 21 | Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's 22 | counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the 23 | terms of the stipulated motion. | Dated: _ July 6, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh fackte 5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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