SB v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

D. Arizona

SB v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

DecidedMarch 4, 2024

Docket2:20-cv-01842

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

SB v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 SB, No. CV-20-01842-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal 16 Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 32). Defendant did not respond to or otherwise oppose the 17 motion, and the deadline to do so has expired. 18 “A litigant is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA if: ‘(1) he is the prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was 19 substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and costs are reasonable.’ Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 20 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Perez–Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).” 21 22 Michele M. v. Saul, No. 19-CV-00272-JLB, 2020 WL 5203375, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 23 2020). 24 Here, following remand to the agency, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Further, the 25 Government did not respond to the motion; thus, the Government failed to rebut Plaintiff’s 26 argument that the Government’s position was not substantially justified. (See Doc. 32 at 27 2); Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that the burden is on 28 the Government to prove its position was substantially justified). 1 Finally, Plaintiff seeks $21,568.70 in attorney’s fee and $905.00 in costs. (Doc. 32). || The Court has reviewed both the motion for fees and the itemized fee statement and finds □□ that the fees sought are reasonable for the work performed. The Government has not opposed this conclusion. 5 Based on the foregoing, 6 IT IS ORDERED granting the motion (Doc. 32) such that fees in the amount of || $21,568.70 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs in the amount of $905.00 as 8 || authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are awarded. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Order, the Commissioner: 10 || (1) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury |} Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the check for the fees awarded herein will be made payable to Plaintiff's □□□□□□□□□□ 13 || However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and any remaining 15 || Equal Access to Justice Act fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff 16|| but delivered to Plaintiffs attorney. 17 Dated this Ist day of March, 2024. 18 19 i C 20 James A. Teilborg 21 Senior United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 aa gunsel requested that the check be payable ic him in his proposed form of Order. (Doc. him, nor did counsel provide a copy of anussigiment “The Court has taken the proposed 28|| no such assignment exists, counsel Must move to amend this Osder within 14 days so thal the fees will be paid to the client.

_2-

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

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 SB, No. CV-20-01842-PHX-JAT

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal 16 Access to Justice Act. (Doc. 32). Defendant did not respond to or otherwise oppose the 17 motion, and the deadline to do so has expired. 18 “A litigant is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the EAJA if: ‘(1) he is the prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was 19 substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and costs are reasonable.’ Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 20 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Perez–Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).” 21 22 Michele M. v. Saul, No. 19-CV-00272-JLB, 2020 WL 5203375, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 23 2020). 24 Here, following remand to the agency, Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Further, the 25 Government did not respond to the motion; thus, the Government failed to rebut Plaintiff’s 26 argument that the Government’s position was not substantially justified. (See Doc. 32 at 27 2); Russell v. Sullivan, 930 F.2d 1443, 1445 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that the burden is on 28 the Government to prove its position was substantially justified). 1 Finally, Plaintiff seeks $21,568.70 in attorney’s fee and $905.00 in costs. (Doc. 32). || The Court has reviewed both the motion for fees and the itemized fee statement and finds □□ that the fees sought are reasonable for the work performed. The Government has not opposed this conclusion. 5 Based on the foregoing, 6 IT IS ORDERED granting the motion (Doc. 32) such that fees in the amount of || $21,568.70 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and costs in the amount of $905.00 as 8 || authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 are awarded. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if, after receiving this Order, the Commissioner: 10 || (1) determines that Plaintiff does not owe a debt that is subject to offset under the Treasury |} Offset Program, and (2) agrees to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, then the check for the fees awarded herein will be made payable to Plaintiff's □□□□□□□□□□ 13 || However, if there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the Commissioner cannot agree to waive the requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, and any remaining 15 || Equal Access to Justice Act fees after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff 16|| but delivered to Plaintiffs attorney. 17 Dated this Ist day of March, 2024. 18 19 i C 20 James A. Teilborg 21 Senior United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 aa gunsel requested that the check be payable ic him in his proposed form of Order. (Doc. him, nor did counsel provide a copy of anussigiment “The Court has taken the proposed 28|| no such assignment exists, counsel Must move to amend this Osder within 14 days so thal the fees will be paid to the client.

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SB v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sb-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-azd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack