(SS) Butler 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 SHANNON BUTLER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00312-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION AWARDING PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND 13 v. EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner 2412(d) AND COSTS PURSUANT TO 28 of Social Security, U.S.C. § 1920 15 Defendant. (Doc No. 20) 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for an award and payment of 19 attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the equal access to justice act and costs pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 1920. (Doc. 20). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiff 21 Shannon Butler’s (“Plaintiff”) attorney, Matthew F. Holmberg, in the amount of $1,935.00 22 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and no costs under 28 23 U.S.C. § 1920. Id. 24 On November 8, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a remand and 25 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 26 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 18). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 19). 27 Plaintiff now requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. (Doc. 20); 1 see Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a 2 sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner 3 did not oppose the requested relief. (Doc. 20). 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 not special circumstances that would 10 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. 11 See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 12 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 13 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 14 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 15 Plaintiff’s counsel requests an award of $1,935.00 in EAJA fees and attaches a retainer 16 agreement. (Doc. 20). The Ninth Circuit maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates 17 authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living, on its website. See 18 Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s 19 counsel seeks the published maximum rate of $234.95 for 2022,1 the requested award would 20 amount to approximately eight hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time 21 expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an 22 attorney would need to have spent reviewing the voluminous certified administrative record in 23 this case (Doc. 13) and preparing the type of summary judgment motion Plaintiff’s counsel 24 prepared and filed (raising two disputed legal issues) (Doc. 14). With respect to the results 25 obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further 26 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited January 20, 1 | administrative proceedings. (Doc. 19). 2 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 3 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 4 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 5 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 6 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for the award and payment of attorney fees and expenses 8 pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 20) is GRANTED; and 9 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 10 the amount of $1,935.00. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 11 make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs counsel Matthew F. Holmberg, in accordance with 12 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 13 [T IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _J anuary 23, 2023 | wnt D RR 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28