(SS) Servantes 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 JACK SERVANTES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00295-CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF 13 v. ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, U.S.C. § 2412(d) 15 Defendant. (Doc. 17) 16 Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17 18 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Jack Servantes (“Plaintiff”) 19 for the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2412(d), in the amount of $6,750.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Jonathan O. Peña. (Doc. 17). 21 The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 22 payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe 23 a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be 24 made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan O. Peña. Id. at 2. 25 On July 25, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary remand 26 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 27 a new decision. (Doc. 15). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 16). On October 23, 1 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence- 2 four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request is timely. 3 Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607-08 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose the 4 requested relief. (Doc. 17). 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 EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 8 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 9 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 10 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would 11 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. 12 See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 13 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 14 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 15 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 16 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,750.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 17). The Ninth Circuit 17 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 18 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876- 19 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rate 20 ($244.62),1 the requested award would amount to approximately 28 hours of attorney time (not 21 accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate 22 with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the certified 23 administrative record in this case (1,265 pages; Doc. 9) and preparing a motion for summary 24 judgment that includes nine pages of argument. (Doc. 10 at 4-13). With respect to the results 25 obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for a new 26 decision. (Docs. 15 at 2-3, 16). 27 1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited October 24, 1 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 2 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 3 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 4 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 5 Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 6 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 17) be 7 GRANTED; and 8 2. The Commissioner be directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 9 the amount of $6,750.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 10 17). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 11 determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 12 payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel, as set forth 13 in the stipulation. 14 The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a District Judge. 15 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days of 17 | being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written objections 18 | with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 19 | and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 20 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 21 | 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 28, 2024 | hannD Rr 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28