Boudreaux v. Saul

S.D. California

Boudreaux v. Saul

DecidedMarch 16, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-00274

StatusUnknown

This text of Boudreaux v. Saul (Boudreaux v. Saul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boudreaux v. Saul, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN B., Case No.: 3:20-cv-00274-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. STIPULATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 14 ANDREW SAUL, ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (28 15 Defendant. U.S.C. § 2412(d))

16 [ECF 23, 25] 17 18 On January 19, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Award of Attorney’s 19 Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, stipulating to an award to Plaintiff of 20 attorneys’ fees of $4,800 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 21 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF 23, 25.) 22 The EAJA allows a prevailing party to seek attorney’s fees from the United States 23 within thirty days of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). “A plaintiff who obtains a 24 sentence four remand is considered a prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees.” 25 Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 26 U.S. 292, 301–02 (1993))). And, the Ninth Circuit sets statutory maximum hourly rates 27 28 1 under the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living. Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 2 || F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005); Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6.! 3 Here, this case was remanded on the parties’ Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand 4 || pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on December 21, 2020, and Plaintiff's 5 ||counsel’s hourly rate is below the Ninth Circuit’s maximum hourly rates under the EAJA. 6 || (ECF 21-21 (Joint Motion and Entry of Judgment), 23 (Joint Motion for EAJA Fees), 25 7 ||(Supplement to Joint Motion with Assignment and Invoice).) Therefore, Plaintiff is the 8 || prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees, the joint motion is timely, and the Court 9 || finds the stipulated amount of fees reasonable. 10 Based upon the Joint Stipulation, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion 11 |/and awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 12, 2021 p / / on. Bernard G. Skomal 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || ————————___—_—_—__ 26 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, United States Courts 27 || for the Ninth Circuit, 28 https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN B., Case No.: 3:20-cv-00274-BGS

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. STIPULATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 14 ANDREW SAUL, ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (28 15 Defendant. U.S.C. § 2412(d))

16 [ECF 23, 25] 17 18 On January 19, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Award of Attorney’s 19 Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, stipulating to an award to Plaintiff of 20 attorneys’ fees of $4,800 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 21 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF 23, 25.) 22 The EAJA allows a prevailing party to seek attorney’s fees from the United States 23 within thirty days of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). “A plaintiff who obtains a 24 sentence four remand is considered a prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees.” 25 Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 26 U.S. 292, 301–02 (1993))). And, the Ninth Circuit sets statutory maximum hourly rates 27 28 1 under the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living. Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 2 || F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005); Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6.! 3 Here, this case was remanded on the parties’ Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand 4 || pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on December 21, 2020, and Plaintiff's 5 ||counsel’s hourly rate is below the Ninth Circuit’s maximum hourly rates under the EAJA. 6 || (ECF 21-21 (Joint Motion and Entry of Judgment), 23 (Joint Motion for EAJA Fees), 25 7 ||(Supplement to Joint Motion with Assignment and Invoice).) Therefore, Plaintiff is the 8 || prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees, the joint motion is timely, and the Court 9 || finds the stipulated amount of fees reasonable. 10 Based upon the Joint Stipulation, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion 11 |/and awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 12, 2021 p / / on. Bernard G. Skomal 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || ————————___—_—_—__ 26 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, United States Courts 27 || for the Ninth Circuit, 28 https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Boudreaux v. Saul, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boudreaux-v-saul-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack