Omar v. Commissioner of Social Security
Opinion
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 HARETHO OMAR, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01386-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 12 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney’s fees 17 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). Dkt. No. 22. Plaintiff Haretho Omar seeks 18 attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,000, to which the parties have stipulated as reasonable 19 attorney’s fees in this matter. Id. at 1. 20 The EAJA provides that: 21 A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of 22 final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive 23 an award under this subsection, and the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness representing or appearing in behalf 24 of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other 1 expenses were computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified. Whether or not the position of the United 2 States was substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the record (including the record with respect to the action or failure to act by the agency upon 3 which the civil action is based) which is made in the civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought. 4 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). 5 The parties have satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The parties filed 6 the instant motion on December 16, 2024, Dkt. No. 22, which was before the Court entered final 7 judgment in this action but after the Court “substantially grant[ed Omar’s] remedy” by vacating 8 the Commissioner’s decision to deny Omar’s application for benefits. Auke Bay Concerned 9 Citizen’s Advisory Council v. Marsh, 779 F.2d 1391, 1393 (9th Cir. 1986); Dora R.S. v. O’Malley, 10 No. 23-cv-00636-AJB-SBC, 2024 WL 4439260, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2024); see also 11 Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S 89, 94–96 (1991); Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 12 1995). The Court also agrees, based on its review of the record, with the parties’ stipulation that 13 Omar was the prevailing party in this matter and that the Commissioner’s position was not 14 substantially justified. Dkt. No. 22 at 1. 15 After independently reviewing the itemized statement submitted by Omar’s counsel, Dkt. 16 No. 22-2 at 4–5; Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 436–37 (1983), the Court confirms that 17 the statement is satisfactory under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) and that the rates charged by Omar’s 18 attorney were in accordance with the statutory maximum hourly rates permitted for work 19 performed in the Ninth Circuit for any given year, U.S. Courts for the Ninth Circuit, Statutory 20 Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 21 https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates (“Maximum Rate Table”) (last 22 visited January 13, 2025); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6. At the 23 statutory amount, Omar’s attorney’s fees amounted to $12,287.31 for 50.4 hours of time billed to 24 1 this matter between 2022 and 2024. Dkt. No. 22-2 at 5. The parties’ stipulation of $10,000 in 2 attorney’s fees is therefore reasonable. Dkt. No. 22 at 1. 3 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated motion for attorney’s 4 fees, Dkt. No. 22, and awards Omar $10,000 in attorney’s fees, subject to any offset allowed under
5 the Treasury Offset Program. 31 U.S.C. § 3716; see also Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 595–98 6 (2010). Payment of EAJA fees shall be sent to Omar’s attorney by either EFT or check: Law Office 7 of Grace V. Dyer, P.S, 1721 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 517, Everett, WA 98201. 8 Dated this 15th day of January, 2025. 9 A 10 Lauren King United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Omar v. Commissioner of Social Security (Omar v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.