Hernandez v. Saul

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00225
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAMON H., Case No.: 21-cv-0225-SBC 11

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR 13 ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner 14 EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE of Social Security, EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 15 Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS 16 PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. § 1920 [ECF NO. 26] 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is a joint motion for the award of attorney’s fees and 20 expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“EAJA”) and 21 costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (ECF No. 26.) For the reasons set forth below, the joint 22 motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 On December 8, 2023, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 25 Summary Judgment, Denying Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and 26 remanding for further administrative proceedings. (ECF No. 22.) On January 11, 2024, the 27 Court issued an order clarifying that the case had been remanded pursuant to sentence six 28 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), vacating the judgment entered by the Clerk of Court, and retaining 1 jurisdiction over the action until the completion of the remanded administrative 2 proceedings. (ECF No. 25.) 3 The joint motion presently before the Court seeks an award of $7,500.00 in 4 attorney’s fees and expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and $402.00 in costs under 28 5 U.S.C. § 1920 payable to Plaintiff’s counsel. (ECF No. 26.) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 The EAJA provides in relevant part, 8 Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a 9 prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that party 10 in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings 11 for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the 12 position of the United States was substantially justified or that special 13 circumstances make an award unjust.

15 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The prevailing party must file an application within thirty days 16 of final judgment. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The application must show that the party is a prevailing 17 party, is eligible to receive an award under this subsection, and the amount sought, 18 including an itemized statement stating the actual time spent and the rate that the fees and 19 expenses were computed. Id. 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 The EAJA provides that an application for fees must be filed “within thirty days of 22 final judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). Under the EAJA, a final judgment is defined 23 as “a judgment that is final and not appealable.” § 2412(d)(2)(G). “In sentence six cases, 24 the filing period does not begin until after the [post-remand] proceedings are completed, 25 the Secretary returns to court, the court enters a final judgment, and the appeal period runs.” 26 Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991). When “the district court remands under 27 sentence six, the claimant cannot apply for fees until the completion of post-remand 28 proceedings.” Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 1995); Neuhauser v. Colvin, 1 C14-5421 BHS, 2015 WL 5081132, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2015) (“a claimant 2 || who obtains a sentence six remand does not become a prevailing party until the claimant 3 ||is awarded benefits on remand”’) (citing Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 4 2002); Flores, 49 F.3d at 568). 5 Here, the joint motion does not address whether Plaintiff has been awarded benefits 6 remand and whether post-remand proceedings have been completed. Moreover, the 7 || parties have not sought the entry of final judgment in the case. See Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 8 While the Court notes that the itemized statement of attorney’s fees and expenses 9 ||attached as an exhibit to the joint motion includes entries dated February 24, 2025, 10 || indicating “review of ALJ decision” and “favorable DIB decision letter to client,” these do 11 provide a sufficient basis upon which the Court can determine whether Plaintiff has 12 || been awarded benefits on remand, whether post-remand proceedings have been completed, 13 whether the appeal period has run. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether 14 || the award of attorney’s fees and expenses is appropriate or timely. 15 IV. CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons discussed above, the parties’ joint motion for the award of attorney’s 17 || fees and expenses pursuant to the EAJA and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 (ECF No. 18 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties may re-file a joint motion in 19 || accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and the other authorities set forth in this order. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: April 17, 2025 2 YF A. 23 fon. SteveB.Chu 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28