Jones v. Kijakazi

District Court, N.D. California·Decided August 21, 2024·No. 3:23-cv-03990·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 San Francisco Division 11 K.J., Case No. 23-cv-03990-LB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 13 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, et al., EQUAL JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 15 Defendants. Re: ECF No. 20 16

17 The plaintiff moves for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access 18 to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. §2142.1 He previously sought judicial review of a final decision 19 by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration denying his claim for supplemental 20 security income (SSI), and this court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied 21 the Commissioner’s cross-motion, and remanded for the calculation of benefits.2 The EAJA 22 provides that a court shall award fees and costs incurred by a prevailing party “in any civil action . 23 . . including proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the United 24 States . . . unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 25 26 27 1 Mot. – ECF No. 20. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. ] that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). A claimant who 2 receives a sentence four remand order in a Social Security case is a prevailing party for EAJA 3 purposes. Shalala v. Shaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 301-02 (1993); Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568 4 (9th Cir. 1995). Recoverable fees and expenses include reasonable expenses of expert witnesses, 5 reasonable costs of any study, analysis, report, test, or project found by the court to be necessary 6 for the prevailing party’s case, and reasonable attorney’s fees. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Here, 7 the amount of the fees is $10,406.73, and the Commissioner does not contest either the 8 justification or the amount.? The court authorizes those fees. The only issue is that the 9 Commissioner must verify whether the plaintiff has any outstanding federal debts and offset the 10 fee payments to his attorney accordingly. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). 1] IT IS SO ORDERED. = 12 Dated: August 20, 2024 LAE

13 □□ LAUREL BEELER 14 United States Magistrate Judge

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > Mot. — ECF No. 20; Response — ECF No. 21.

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

Jones v. Kijakazi, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Jones v. Kijakazi (Jones v. Kijakazi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shalala v. Schaefer
509 U.S. 292 (Supreme Court, 1993)
Astrue v. Ratliff
560 U.S. 586 (Supreme Court, 2010)