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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LADAWN BENCIA ROBLES, Case No. 1:22-cv-00598-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT1 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING (Doc. No. 18) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney fees filed on 19 January 10, 2023. (Doc. No.18). The parties agree to an award attorney’s fees and expenses to 20 Plaintiff’s attorney, Francesco Benavides of the Law Offices of Francesco Benavides, in the 21 amount of $ 7,200.00 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. 22 (Id.). 23 On January 4, 2023, this Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Voluntary 24 Remand and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the 25 Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 16). Judgment was entered the 26 same day. (Doc. No. 17). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 10). 28 1 | US.C. § 2412(a) & (d)U1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. 2 || Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand 3 || order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the 4 | requested relief. (Doc. No. 18). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 6 || civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 8 || unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 9 || make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 10 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 11 | award unjust. 12 The Court finds an award of $7200.00 is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are 13 | subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue 14 || v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order 15 | that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be 16 | delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. Plaintiffs stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No.18) is 19 | GRANTED. 20 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 21 || the amount of $7200.00 in attorney fees. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that 22 | Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs 23 | counsel, Francesco Benavides, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the 24 || terms of the stipulated motion. 2 Dated: _ January 19, 2023 law ZA. foareh Back 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28