Daniel Ayala v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

Daniel Ayala v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedDecember 4, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00644

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Daniel Ayala v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DANIEL AYALA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00644-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 17) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Daniel Ayala (“Plaintiff”) for 18 the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 19 2412(d), in the amount of $6,000.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Jonathan O. Peña.1 (Doc. 17). 20 The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 21 payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a 22 federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made 23 directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan O. Peña. Id. at 2. 24 On September 2, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for voluntary remand 25 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (Doc. 26 15). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 16). On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed the 27

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 1 pending stipulation for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party. (Doc. 17). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 2 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 3 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s filing is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 4 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in civil 6 actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party unless it 8 finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances make such 9 an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was substantially justified 10 and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an award unjust. Moreover, 11 the Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. (Doc. 17). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 12 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the 13 government was not substantially justified in view of the Commissioner’s assent to remand); 14 Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) 15 (same). 16 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,000.00 in EAJA fees as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 17 (Doc. 17). The Ninth Circuit maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by 18 the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living, on its website.2 See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 19 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005). Under the applicable rate of $251.84, the requested award 20 would amount to approximately 24 hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time 21 expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney 22 would need to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (approximately 23 1,319 pages; Doc. 11) and preparing a motion for summary judgment that includes 12 pages of 24 argument (Doc. 12 at 5-16). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a 25 favorable judgment remanding the case for further proceedings. (Docs. 15, 16). 26 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset

27 2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited November 17, 1 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 2 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 3 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 17) is 6 GRANTED; and 7 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 8 the amount of $6,000.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 9 17). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 10 determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 11 payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiffs counsel, as set forth 12 in the stipulation. 13 [T IS SO ORDERED. '4) Dated: _ December 4, 2025 | by 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DANIEL AYALA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00644-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 17) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Daniel Ayala (“Plaintiff”) for 18 the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 19 2412(d), in the amount of $6,000.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Jonathan O. Peña.1 (Doc. 17). 20 The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 21 payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a 22 federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made 23 directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan O. Peña. Id. at 2. 24 On September 2, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation for voluntary remand 25 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for further proceedings. (Doc. 26 15). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 16). On December 2, 2025, Plaintiff filed the 27

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 1 pending stipulation for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party. (Doc. 17). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 2 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 3 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s filing is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 4 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in civil 6 actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party unless it 8 finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances make such 9 an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was substantially justified 10 and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an award unjust. Moreover, 11 the Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. (Doc. 17). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 12 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the 13 government was not substantially justified in view of the Commissioner’s assent to remand); 14 Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) 15 (same). 16 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,000.00 in EAJA fees as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 17 (Doc. 17). The Ninth Circuit maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by 18 the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living, on its website.2 See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 19 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005). Under the applicable rate of $251.84, the requested award 20 would amount to approximately 24 hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time 21 expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney 22 would need to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (approximately 23 1,319 pages; Doc. 11) and preparing a motion for summary judgment that includes 12 pages of 24 argument (Doc. 12 at 5-16). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a 25 favorable judgment remanding the case for further proceedings. (Docs. 15, 16). 26 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset

27 2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited November 17, 1 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 2 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 3 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 17) is 6 GRANTED; and 7 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 8 the amount of $6,000.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 9 17). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 10 determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 11 payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiffs counsel, as set forth 12 in the stipulation. 13 [T IS SO ORDERED. '4) Dated: _ December 4, 2025 | by 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniel Ayala v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-ayala-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack