(SS) Adame De Diaz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MARIA DE LOS ANGELES ADAME DE Case No. 1:23-cv-01129-CDB (SS) DIAZ, 12 ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD Plaintiff, OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES 13 PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO v. JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 23) 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for award of attorney’s fees pursuant 19 to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. 23). The parties 20 agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff Maria De Los Angeles Adame De 21 Diaz (“Plaintiff”) should be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 22 determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the 23 payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan O. 24 Peña. Id. at 2. By his stipulated motion, Plaintiff requests $6,250.00 in fees and expenses 25 pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Id. at 1. 26 On April 1, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary remand 27 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 1 On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees. (Doc. 23). 2 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. Id.; see 3 Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence- 4 four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request is timely. 5 Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose the 6 requested relief. (Doc. 22). 7 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 8 civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 9 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 10 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 11 circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 12 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would 13 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated 14 request. See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 15 Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 16 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 17 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 18 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,250.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 23). The Ninth Circuit 19 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 20 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876- 21 77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly 22 rate (244.62),1 the requested award would amount to approximately 26 hours of attorney time 23 (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and 24 commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the 25 certified administrative record in this case (3096 pages) and preparing a motion for summary 26 judgment that raises one issue for the Court’s review. (Doc. 17). With respect to the results 27

1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | obtained, Plaintiff's counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further 2 | administrative proceedings. (Docs. 21-22). 3 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the 5 | Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not 6 | subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise 7 | transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 23) is 10 GRANTED; and 11 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 12 the amount of $6,250.00 and no costs, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ 13 stipulation. (Doc. 23). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of 14 the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government 15 shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff's 16 counsel, as set forth in the stipulation. 17 | Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: □ July 2, 2024 | ha 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28