Harter v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 NICHOLE C. HARTER, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01177-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR 12 v. ATTORNEY FEES (DKT. NO. 16) 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees pursuant to the 17 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). 18 Under the EAJA, the Court must award attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action 19 such as this unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified” or that special 20 circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The EAJA creates a 21 presumption that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 22 (9th Cir. 1995); Zapon v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 53 F.3d 283, 284 (9th Cir. 1995). The 23 Supreme Court has interpreted the term “substantially justified” to mean that a prevailing party is 24 1 not entitled to recover fees if the government’s position is “justified to a degree that could satisfy 2 a reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 (1992). Attorney fees under 3 EAJA must be reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 4 (1983). 5 If a party obtains reversal and remand in a social security benefits case, they are the

6 “prevailing party” under the EAJA. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). 7 Thus, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. (See Dkt. No. 14, Order Remanding for Award of 8 Benefits.) Likewise, a “‘holding that the agency’s decision . . . was unsupported by substantial 9 evidence is . . . a strong indication that the position of the United States . . . was not substantially 10 justified.’” Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 874 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 11 428 F.3d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 2005)). Here, the Court concluded that the ALJ’s opinion was not 12 supported by substantial evidence and constituted legal error. (Dkt. No. 14 at 21.) Defendant 13 has not replied to this motion or otherwise shown that the government’s position was justified. 14 Therefore, under these circumstances, the Court finds fees should be awarded.

15 Plaintiff is entitled to “reasonable” fees. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Determining 16 reasonableness “will always depend on case-specific factors including, among others, the 17 complexity of the legal issues, the procedural history, the size of the record, and when counsel 18 was retained.” Costa v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2012). 19 The fee applicant bears the burden of proving reasonableness. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); 20 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S.424, 437 (1983) (“[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of 21 establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly 22 rates.”). 23 24 1 Plaintiff applies for an award of $8,964.77, which represents compensation for the time 2 Plaintiff’s lawyers and paralegals spent on this action—35.2 hours of attorney work and 1.0 hour 3 of paralegal work. (Dkt. No. 16-1 at 2.) See Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 4 590 (2008) (paralegal time is compensable under the EAJA.) Plaintiff provides an itemized 5 statement of the time expended and asserts the hours are reasonable because “(1) each time entry

6 reflects legitimate activity to provide quality service to Plaintiff and to this Court, and (2) 7 Plaintiff’s attorney prepared for this Court a substantial opening and reply brief.” (Dkt. No. 16 at 8 4.) The hourly rate for Plaintiff’s counsel is $251.84; the rate for paralegal services is $100. 9 (Dkt. No. 16-1 at 2.) Thus, Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is the statutory maximum hourly rate 10 under EAJA. (Id.; Smith v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CV-22-01537-PHX-JAT, 2025 WL 11 1580997, *4 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2025)). The Commissioner has filed no objections to this hourly 12 rate or the number of hours that Plaintiff’s counsel spent on this case. The Court finds that the 13 requested number of hours is reasonable, and that Plaintiff is entitled to the statutory hourly rate 14 pursuant to the EAJA.

15 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that fees in the amount of $8,964.77 shall be awarded 16 to Plaintiff pursuant to the EAJA. Plaintiff assigned her EAJA fee award to her attorney in the 17 fee agreement. (Dkt. No. 16-2 at 1.) Accordingly, attorney and paralegal fees in the amount of 18 $8,964.77 will be paid to Plaintiff’s attorney, subject to verification that Plaintiff does not have a 19 debt which qualifies for offset against the awarded fees, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program 20 as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then the 21 check shall be made out to Plaintiff’s attorney: H. Peter Evans at Evans & Evans, PC, 222 NE 22 Park Plaza Drive, Suite 113, Vancouver, WA 98684. If Plaintiff has a debt, then the check for 23 24 1 any remaining funds after offset of the debt shall be made out to Plaintiff and mailed to 2 Plaintiff’s attorney’s office. 3 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2025. 4 a 5 David G. Estudillo 6 United States District Judge

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24