(SS) Garcia v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENRIQUE GARCIA, JR., Case No. 1:23-cv-01379-CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 17) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 17). The 19 parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff Enrique Garcia, Jr. 20 (“Plaintiff”), Melissa Newel, in the amount of $6,225.58 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 21 2412(d). Id. 22 On February 6, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to remand and 23 remanded this matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 24 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 15). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 16). On March 6, 25 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulated motion for attorney fees. (Doc. 17). 26 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. Id.; see 27 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who prevails in a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request 1 is timely. See Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 2 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 3 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 4 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 5 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 6 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 7 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are no special circumstances that would make 8 an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. (Doc. 9 17). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 11 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-2726 DAD, 2014 WL 12 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 13 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,225.58 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 17). The Ninth Circuit 14 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 15 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876- 16 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rate 17 for 2023 ($244.62),1 the requested award would amount to approximately 25 hours of attorney 18 time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court has reviewed the docket and 19 finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney reasonably would 20 need to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (over 900 pages) and 21 preparing a motion for summary judgment raising two issues for review: (1) whether the ALJ 22 provided clear and convincing reasons to discount Plaintiff’s pain testimony; and (2) whether the 23 ALJ erred in evaluating a medical opinion. (Doc. 13). With respect to the results obtained, 24 Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further administrative 25 proceedings. (Docs. 15-16). 26 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 2 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 3 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 17) is 6 GRANTED; 7 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 8 the amount of $6,225.58 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and 9 3. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall make payment of the 10 fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Melissa Newel in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of 11 fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 12 [T IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _Mareh 7, 2024 | Wr 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28