- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMILLE LYNN STENSON, Case No.: 20-cv-1521-WQH-RBB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal 19 Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, filed by Plaintiff Camille Lynn Stenson. (ECF 20 No. 22). 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On August 6, 2020, Plaintiff Camille Lynn Stenson filed a Complaint against the 23 Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”), seeking judicial review of the final 24 decision of the Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for Social Security benefits 25 for lack of disability. (ECF No. 1). On June 8, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion for 26 Voluntary Remand and Entry of Judgment. (ECF No. 19). On June 11, 2021, the Court 27 issued an Order remanding the case to the Commissioner for further proceedings and 28 directing the Clerk of the Court to enter a final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against 1 the Commissioner. (ECF No. 20). On the same day, the Clerk of the Court entered final 2 judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against the Commissioner, reversing the final decision 3 of the Commissioner. (ECF No. 21). 4 On September 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the 5 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (ECF No. 22). Plaintiff requests 6 that the Court issue an order awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,977.95 and 7 expenses in the amount of $17.25. The docket reflects that the Commissioner has not filed 8 any opposition to the Motion for Attorney Fees. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff contends that she is a prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJA 11 because “the District Court remanded the case under sentence four [of] 42 U.S.C. § 12 405(g).” (ECF No. 22-1 at 2). Plaintiff contends that her net worth did not exceed 13 $2,000,000.00 when this action was filed, and “[t]he position of the United States was not 14 substantially justified.” (Id.). Plaintiff contends that she is entitled to EAJA fees for: (1) 15 2.4 hours of attorney work at a rate of $207.78 per hour for 2020; (2) 21.6 hours of attorney 16 work at a rate of $213.74 per hour for 2021; (3) 6.9 hours of paralegal work at a rate of 17 $125.00 per hour; and (4) $17.25 for the cost of the certified mailing of the summons and 18 Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a Declaration by Plaintiff, a Declaration by Plaintiff’s 19 attorney, and an itemization of services and costs in support of the Motion for Attorney 20 Fees. 21 The EAJA provides: 22 Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . 23 incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), 24 including proceedings for review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court 25 finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that 26 special circumstances make an award unjust. 27 28 1 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The requirements for eligibility for a fee award under § 2 2412(d)(1)(A) are: (1) the claimant must be a “prevailing party;” (2) the government’s 3 position must not have been “substantially justified;” (3) there must be no “special 4 circumstances [that] make an award unjust;” and (4) a fee application must be submitted 5 to the court within thirty days after the judgment became final and unappealable and be 6 supported by an itemized statement. Comm’r of Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. 7 Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 158 (1990). 8 “The party seeking fees has the burden of establishing its eligibility.” Love v. Reilly, 9 924 F.2d 1492, 1494 (9th Cir. 1991). However, “the burden of proving the special 10 circumstances or substantial justification exception to the mandatory award of fees under 11 the EAJA rests with the government.” Id. at 1495. Fees awarded pursuant to the EAJA 12 must be reasonable, and the party seeking such fees bears the burden of proving that the 13 fees and hourly rate requested are reasonable. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433- 14 34 (1983); see also Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (it is 15 plaintiff’s burden to document “the appropriate hours expended in the litigation by 16 submitting evidence in support of those hours worked”). District courts have discretion in 17 determining the amount of a fee award, including the reasonableness of the hours claimed 18 by the prevailing party. Gates, 987 F.2d at 1398. 19 In this case, Plaintiff was the prevailing party, and the Motion for Attorney Fees was 20 timely filed. The Commissioner has not contested Plaintiff’s assertion that its position was 21 not substantially justified within the meaning of the EAJA or asserted that special 22 circumstances make an award unjust. Plaintiff submitted two Declarations and a detailed 23 itemization of hours expended in connection with this action. The Court concludes that the 24 uncontested number of hours, rates, and costs asserted by Plaintiff are reasonable. The 25 Court awards Plaintiff the requested fees of $5,115.45 and costs of $17.25. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 ||T. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to the Equal 3 || Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (ECF No. 22) is granted. Plaintiff is entitled to an 4 ||award of $5,977.95 in attorneys’ fees and $17.25 in costs, totaling $5,995.20. If Plaintiff 5 || owes a debt that qualifies under the Treasury Offset Program (31 U.S.C. § 3716), payment 6 || shall be made payable to Plaintiff. If Plaintiff owes no debt subject to offset, payment shall 7 || be made payable to Olinsky Law Group. Payment shall be mailed to the following address: 8 Olinsky Law Group EIN 26-2258247 9 250 S Clinton St Ste 210 Syracuse NY 13202 Dated: October 26, 2021 BME: ie Z. A a D Hon. William Q. Hayes United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 3:20-cv-01521-WQH-RBB
Filed Date: 10/26/2021
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024