Mothe v. Commissioner of Social Security

W.D. Washington

Mothe v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedAugust 24, 2022

Docket3:20-cv-05856

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Mothe v. Commissioner of Social Security, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE DIVISION 8 TONI MARIE MOTHE, ) 9 ) CASE NO. C20-5856-RSM 10 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION 11 vs. ) FOR EAJA FEES ) 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant 16 to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. #19. 17 Under EAJA, the Court must award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action such 18 as this unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified” or that special 19 circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). EAJA creates a presumption 20 that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party, but Congress did not intend fee shifting to be 21 mandatory. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995); Zapon v. United States Dep’t of 22 23 Justice, 53 F.3d 283, 284 (9th Cir. 1995). Rather, the Supreme Court has interpreted the term 24 “substantially justified” to mean that a prevailing party is not entitled to recover fees if the 25 1 government’s position is “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. 2 Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 (1992). The decision to deny EAJA attorney’s fees is within the 3 discretion of the court. Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002). Attorneys’ fees 4 under EAJA must be reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 5 433 (1983). 6 This Motion is untimely. In Melkonyan v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that a 7 prevailing party must file a motion for attorney fees under the EAJA within 30 days of final 8 judgment. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 103 (1991); see 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). 9 10 However, because the Commissioner has 60 days in which to appeal a judgment of a federal district 11 court, FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B), the 30-day period does not begin to run until 60 days after the 12 district court has issued a judgment that is no longer appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(G); 13 Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 94-95; Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 Here, the Court entered Judgment on April 27, 2021. Dkt. # 18. Therefore, Plaintiff had until 15 Monday, July 26, 2021, to move for an award of EAJA attorney fees. However, Plaintiff did not 16 file the instant EAJA petition until August 20, 2021, nearly a month after the EAJA deadline 17 expired. Dkt. # 19. Plaintiff claims that this delay is due to the Government’s delay in failing to 18 respond, “to multiple attempts to obtain consent to a stipulation motion.” Dkt. #19 at 1. The Court 19 20 does not find the parties’ failure to enter a stipulated motion as good cause for the late filing. 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. #19, is 22 DENIED. 23 // 24 // 25 1 DATED this 24th day of August, 2022. 2 3 A 4 5 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON SEATTLE DIVISION 8 TONI MARIE MOTHE, ) 9 ) CASE NO. C20-5856-RSM 10 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION 11 vs. ) FOR EAJA FEES ) 12 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant 16 to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. #19. 17 Under EAJA, the Court must award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in an action such 18 as this unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified” or that special 19 circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). EAJA creates a presumption 20 that fees will be awarded to a prevailing party, but Congress did not intend fee shifting to be 21 mandatory. Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1995); Zapon v. United States Dep’t of 22 23 Justice, 53 F.3d 283, 284 (9th Cir. 1995). Rather, the Supreme Court has interpreted the term 24 “substantially justified” to mean that a prevailing party is not entitled to recover fees if the 25 1 government’s position is “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. 2 Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 566 (1992). The decision to deny EAJA attorney’s fees is within the 3 discretion of the court. Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002). Attorneys’ fees 4 under EAJA must be reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 5 433 (1983). 6 This Motion is untimely. In Melkonyan v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that a 7 prevailing party must file a motion for attorney fees under the EAJA within 30 days of final 8 judgment. Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 103 (1991); see 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). 9 10 However, because the Commissioner has 60 days in which to appeal a judgment of a federal district 11 court, FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(B), the 30-day period does not begin to run until 60 days after the 12 district court has issued a judgment that is no longer appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(G); 13 Melkonyan, 501 U.S. at 94-95; Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 Here, the Court entered Judgment on April 27, 2021. Dkt. # 18. Therefore, Plaintiff had until 15 Monday, July 26, 2021, to move for an award of EAJA attorney fees. However, Plaintiff did not 16 file the instant EAJA petition until August 20, 2021, nearly a month after the EAJA deadline 17 expired. Dkt. # 19. Plaintiff claims that this delay is due to the Government’s delay in failing to 18 respond, “to multiple attempts to obtain consent to a stipulation motion.” Dkt. #19 at 1. The Court 19 20 does not find the parties’ failure to enter a stipulated motion as good cause for the late filing. 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s motion, Dkt. #19, is 22 DENIED. 23 // 24 // 25 1 DATED this 24th day of August, 2022. 2 3 A 4 5 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mothe v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mothe-v-commissioner-of-social-security-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack