Rodolfo Daniel GOMEZ GOMEZ v. Jeremy Casey, et al.

Opinion

3 Rodolfo Daniel GOMEZ GOMEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3674-AGS-AHG 4 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 5 v. (ECF 9) 6 Jeremy Casey, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner seeks attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2414(d). (See ECF 9.) The EAJA mandates that a court shall “award to a prevailing party” 11 “fees and expenses incurred in a civil action brought by or against the United States, unless 12 the government shows that its position was substantially justified or that special 13 circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 14 Respondents filed no opposition. It is within the court’s “discretion to determine that 15 the government’s lack of timely opposition is tantamount to a concession that its position 16 in the litigation was not substantially justified.” Gwaduri v. I.N.S., 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 17 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court concludes that the unopposed number of hours listed—just 18 under 20 for all staff—is reasonable. (See ECF 9-1, at 4–5.) And the proposed billing rate 19 for the attorneys is the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 EAJA cap, so the Court also finds the rate is 20 reasonable. See Statutory Maximum Rates Under the EAJA, U.S. Courts for the Ninth 21 Circuit, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited 22 May 26, 2026) (listing the 2025 maximum rate as “$258.46”); (see also ECF 9-1, at 5 23 (requesting “258.46” as the attorneys’ hourly rate)). 24 Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA is granted in the amount of 25 $5,098.97. The pending motion hearing is vacated. 26 27 28 1 ||Dated: June 23, 2026

3 Hon. rew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28