Maria Dolores Gomez de Abarca v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-01769
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA DOLORES GOMEZ DE ) Case No.: 3:24-cv-01769-BEN-JLB 12 ABARCA, ) ) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 ) MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FES Plaintiff, 14 ) v. ) 15 ) FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting 16 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 17 ) 18 Defendant. ) ) 19 ) 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorney fees pursuant to the 22 Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. ECF No. 27. After considering the papers 23 submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Plaintiff’s Motion is 24 GRANTED. 25 II. LEGAL STANDARD 26 "Under the EAJA, a litigant is entitled to attorney's fees and costs if: (1) [s]he is the 27 prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially 28 1 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and 2 costs are reasonable." Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005); 28 U.S.C. 3 §2412(d)(1)(A). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. Prevailing Party 6 “An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the purposes of 7 the EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of whether 8 disability benefits ultimately are awarded.” Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255, 1257 9 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 10 Here, Plaintiff satisfies the first prong as she was the prevailing party. Plaintiff’s 11 denial of her benefits has been reversed and remanded. See ECF No. 24. 12 B. Government’s Position 13 Under the EAJA, the prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees "unless the court 14 finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special 15 circumstances make an award unjust." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The government bears 16 the burden of proving that its position was substantially justified. Meier v. Colvin, 727 17 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013). The government must establish that it "had a reasonable 18 basis both in law and fact" for its conduct. Sampson v. Chater, 103 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir. 19 1996). 20 Here, Defendant does not assert in its response to Plaintiff’s motion that the 21 government was substantially justified. See ECF No. 28. 22 C. Reasonable Fees "[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and 23 documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 24 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). Determining a reasonable fee may be found by taking the number 25 of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. Id. at 26 433. Hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary should be excluded 27 from an award of fees. Id. at 434. "There is a strong presumption that the 'lodestar figure' 28 | ||fepresents a reasonable fee," and it should be reduced only in "rare instances." Morales v. > City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 364 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Minh Trieu Doan v. 3 || Berryhill, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96972, 2018 WL 2761733, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 7, 4 2018) ("Generally, the court should defer to the winning lawyer's professional judgment as 5 || to how much time was required for the case.") (citation omitted). 6 Here, the attorney fees being requested by Plaintiffs attorneys are reasonable. 7 || Plaintiff's attorneys filed, in support of this motion, itemized time records that correlate g || with individual tasks performed throughout the three years they worked on this matter. g || Plaintiff's attorneys request an hourly rate of $207.78 for time spent in 2020; an hourly rate 19 || Of $217.54 for time spent in 2021; and an hourly rate of $231.49 for time spent in 2022. 11 The total number of hours amounts to 39.9 hours. Thereby, the total fee is $10,048.42. 12 | CONCLUSION 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney/s Fees is GRANTED. 14 || DATED: November 6, 2025 liye 15 N. ROGER T. BENJTEZ 6 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-