(SS) Bizzini 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 TINA MARIE BIZZINI, Case No. 1:21-cv-00228-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. 24) COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 15 SECURITY, 16 Defendant. 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney fees filed on July 18 12, 2022. (Doc. No. 24). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and expenses to 19 Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña, in the amount of SIX THOUSAND NINE-HUNDRED 20 THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS and 52/100 ($6,939.52) pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 21 (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.). 22 On April 13, 2022, this Court granted the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Voluntary 23 Remand and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the 24 Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 22). Judgment was entered the 25 same day. (Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 26 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. 11). 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. 24 at 1). 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. The Court finds an award of $6,939.52 is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and 12 || costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed 13 | in Astrue vy. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of 14 | this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees 15 | shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 16 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 17 1. The parties’ stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 24) is 18 | GRANTED. 19 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 20 | the amount of SIX THOUSAND NINE-HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS and 21 | 52/100 ($6,939.52) in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury determines 22 | that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs 23 | counsel, Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the 24 | terms of the stipulated motion. °° | Dated: _ July 15,2022 law Nh. fareh Sass □□□ 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28