Cohen v. Social Security

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01367
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 LARRY NEIL COHEN, Case No.2:24-CV-1367 JCM (NJK)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v.

10 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

11 Defendant(s).

12 13 Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal 14 Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (ECF No. 22). The parties conferred and agreed to settle 15 the motion at a reduced rate. (ECF No. 22). Accordingly, defendant does not oppose the motion, 16 or the amounts requested therein. (Id.). 17 Litigants are usually required to bear the expenses of their litigation unless a statute or 18 private agreement provides otherwise. Under the EAJA, congress authorized fee recovery by 19 prevailing parties. A litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if: (1) he is the prevailing party; 20 (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially justified or that special 21 circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and costs are reasonable. 22 Carbonell v. INS, 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). 23 The first issue is whether plaintiff was a “prevailing party.” To be a prevailing party, a 24 litigant must “achieve a material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties.” Id. (citing 25 Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604–05 26 (2001), superseded in part by statute, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)). That alteration must be “judicially 27 sanctioned.” Id. 28 1 Plaintiff was the prevailing party. “[A]n order remanding a case to an administrative 2 agency for further proceedings passes the Buckhannon test, where such a remand is what the 3 plaintiff or petitioner sought.” Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. United States BLM, 589 F.3d 4 1027, 1030 (9th Cir. 2009) (entertaining a stipulated order); see Li v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 913, 918 5 (9th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the circuit mediator’s remand orders “advanced the goals sought 6 by petitioners, and constituted material alterations of the parties’ legal relationships” under 7 Buckhannon). The court ordered that this action be remanded for further administrative 8 proceedings pursuant to the Social Security Act § 205(g), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), 9 sentence four. (ECF No. 20). This was the relief that plaintiff sought, as it was a grant of a 10 stipulation to remand and constituted a material alteration of the parties’ legal relationship for 11 purposes of Buckhannon. (See ECF No. 19); Li v. Keisler, 505 F.3d at 918. 12 The second prong is met because the government does not oppose the motion. (ECF No. 13 22 at 5). 14 After a review of the attached affirmation and exhibits, the court finds that the requested 15 fees and costs of $8,350.00 are reasonable, thereby satisfying the third prong. (See id. at 5; Exs. 16 A, B, C). Additionally, and persuasively, defendant does not contest the amount requested. (ECF 17 No. 22 at 5). 18 Having satisfied all three requirements under the EAJA, plaintiff is entitled to recover 19 attorney’s fees. Plaintiff waived direct payment of Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fees, 20 assigning any fees to be paid directly to his attorney. (ECF No. 22 at Ex. D). 21 . . . 22 . . . 23 . . . 24 . . . 25 . . . 26 . . . 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 3 1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (ECF No. 22) be, and the same hereby is, 4 GRANTED; 5 2. Plaintiff’s counsel is awarded $8,350.00 in fees and costs, made payable to Olinsky 6 Law Group, less any debt owed by plaintiff to the Department of Treasury. 7 DATED September 26, 2025. 8 ________________________________________ 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28