Myers v. O' Malley
This text of Myers v. O' Malley (Myers v. O' Malley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN M., Case No.: 24-cv-01381-JLB
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES 14 FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 16
17 [ECF No. 19] 18 19 Before the Court is a joint motion for award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal 20 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF No. 19.) For the following 21 reasons, the Court GRANTS the joint motion for award of attorney’s fees. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff Jonathan M. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against the 24 Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”) seeking judicial review of the 25
26 27 1 Frank Bisignano, the new Acting Commissioner of Social Security as of May 6, 2025, is hereby substituted as the defendant in this matter pursuant to Federal Rule 28 1 denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. (ECF No. 1.) The 2 Commissioner filed the Administrative Record on October 1, 2024. (ECF No. 11.) 3 The parties filed a joint motion for voluntary remand to agency pursuant to sentence 4 four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on October 2, 2024. (ECF No. 13.) On October 3, 2024, the 5 Court granted the joint motion and remanded the matter to the Social Security 6 Administration for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 7 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 14.) Final judgment was entered on May 5, 2025. (ECF 8 No. 18.) 9 Now before the Court is a joint motion for the award and payment of attorney fees 10 and expenses pursuant to the EAJA. (ECF No. 19.) The parties jointly ask the Court to 11 award Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,000 under the EAJA. (Id. at 2.) This 12 amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by 13 counsel in connection with this action. (Id.) 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 A litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA if: “(1) [s]he is the 16 prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially 17 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and 18 costs are reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Perez– 19 Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 20 The prevailing party is eligible to seek attorney’s fees within thirty days of final 21 judgment in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). “A sentence four remand becomes a 22 final judgment, for purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the EAJA, upon 23 expiration of the time for appeal.” Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) 24 (internal citation omitted). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), the time 25 for appeal expires sixty days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is a United States 26 officer sued in an official capacity. Therefore, a motion for attorney’s fees filed after a 27 sentence four remand is timely if filed within thirty days after Rule 4(a)’s sixty-day appeal 28 period has expired. See Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 611–12 (9th Cir. 2007). 1 Here, the Court finds the parties’ joint motion is timely and that Plaintiff is entitled 2 to EAJA fees. First, the Court remanded this case for further administrative proceedings 3 pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and entered judgment for Plaintiff. 4 (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 18.) Plaintiff is therefore the prevailing party, for “[a] plaintiff who 5 obtains a sentence four remand,” even when further administrative review is ordered, “is 6 considered a prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan, 296 F.3d at 854 7 (citing Schalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297–98, 301–02); see also Roland S. v. Saul, 8 No. 3:20-CV-01068-AHG, 2021 WL 4081567, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2021) (finding the 9 plaintiff to be the prevailing party where the case was remanded pursuant to sentence four 10 of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) based on a joint motion for voluntary remand). 11 Second, the Commissioner makes no argument that her position was substantially 12 justified. See Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (“It is the government’s 13 burden to show that its position was substantially justified.”). Rather, the Commissioner 14 filed a joint motion to voluntarily remand this case for further administrative proceedings, 15 and the instant fee request comes to the Court by way of a joint motion. See Ulugalu v. 16 Berryhill, No. 17-CV-01087-GPC-JLB, 2018 WL 2012330, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) 17 (finding the Commissioner did not demonstrate substantial justification for her position 18 where she filed a voluntary stipulation for remand and the matter was referred to an 19 administrative law judge to make a new determination as to the plaintiff’s disability). 20 Finally, Plaintiff’s requested fees are reasonable. The Court typically determines 21 the reasonableness of the requested fee by using the lodestar method. See Costa v. Comm'r 22 23 24 2 The instant joint motion was filed before the judgment became final. However, this 25 Court finds, as other courts have, that prematurity does not bar a motion for EAJA fees. See Auke Bay Concerned Citizen’s Advisory Council v. Marsh, 779 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th 26 Cir. 1986); Sergio C. v. Kijakazi, No. 20-CV-02270-AHG, 2022 WL 1122847, at *2 (S.D. 27 Cal. Apr. 14, 2022) (applying Auke Bay to conclude a plaintiff’s EAJA fee application in a Social Security case was not premature where the court had remanded for payment of 28 1 Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, the parties do not attach 2 || Plaintiff's counsel’s itemized list of hours and rates for this matter to the joint motion. 3 ||(ECF No. 19.) However, based on a review of recent orders granting EAJA fees filed in 4 || this District, the Court finds that the requested fee is more than reasonable. See, e.g., Green 5 || v. Dudek, No. 25-cv-362-RSH-SBC (S.D. Cal.), ECF No. 11 (May 22, 2025) (awarding 6 ||$1,665.48 in attorney’s fees under EAJA following joint motion to remand); Hastie- 7 ||Sanders v. O'Malley, No. 24-cv-00991-DEB (S.D. Cal.), ECF No. 20 (Mar. 17, 2025) 8 || (awarding $5,400 in attorney’s fees under EAJA following joint motion to remand); Glasoe 9 || v. Kijakazi, No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Myers v. O' Malley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-o-malley-casd-2025.