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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARRIE JUANNELL KISER, Case No. 2:23-cv-0091-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice 18 Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). ECF No. 23. Plaintiff seeks fees in the amount of 19 $6,938.89 based on 25.3 hours of attorney work in 2023 of at the corresponding statutory- 20 maximum rates of $244.62 and 6.0 hours of paralegal time at a rate of $125.00. ECF Nos. 23-1 at 21 2. 22 The EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United States should be awarded 23 fees and other expenses incurred by that party in any civil action brought by or against the United 24 States, “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 25 that special circumstances make an award unjust directs the court to award a reasonable fee.” 28 26 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1). In determining whether a fee is reasonable, the court considers the hours 27 expended, the reasonable hourly rate, and the results obtained. See Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 28 U.S. 154 (1990); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986 (9th 1 | Cir. 1998). “[E]xcessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” hours should be excluded from a 2 | fee award, and charges that are not properly billable to a client are not properly billable to the 3 | government. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 4 Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this action. See ECF No. 21. Furthermore, the 5 | government has not filed an opposition to plaintiffs motion and therefore has failed to show that 6 | its position was substantially justified. See Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 7 | 2001) cholding that the burden of establishing substantial justification is on the government). The 8 | court has independently reviewed the record and finds that both the hourly rate and hours 9 || expended are reasonable in light of the results obtained. 10 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 11 1. Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees, ECF No. 23, is granted. 12 2. Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees and paralegal time under the EAJA in the amount 13 | of $6,938.89. 14 3. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any payment shall be made payable 15 | to plaintiff and delivered to plaintiff's counsel, unless plaintiff does not owe a federal debt. If the 16 | United States Department of the Treasury determines that plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, 17 || the government shall accept plaintiff's assignment of EAJA fees and pay fees directly to 18 | plaintiff's counsel. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ November 22, 2024 q——— 22 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 74 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28