(SS) Montoya v. Commissioner of Social Security
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ANA GONZALEZ MONTOYA Case No. 1:23-cv-0544 JLT BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING IN 13 v. PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES PURSUANT TO THE 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT Commissioner of Social Security,1 15 (Docs. 20, 25) Defendant. 16 17 Ana Gonzalez Montoya sought judicial review of the administrative decision denying her 18 application for benefits. After the parties stipulated to a voluntary remand, the Court remanded 19 the matter for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and entered 20 judgment in favor of Plaintiff. (Docs. 18, 19.) Plaintiff now seeks an award of attorneys’ fees 21 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 20.) 22 The magistrate judge observed that under the EAJA, the prevailing party may obtain fees 23 where the positions of the Commissioner and the Government were not substantially justified. 24 (See Doc. 25 at 2-3.) Due to the voluntary remand, the magistrate judge found it was undisputed 25 that Plaintiff was the prevailing party in the action and the position of the Commissioner was not 26
27 1 Martin O’Malley became the Commissioner of Social Security on December 20, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Martin O’Malley as the defendant in 28 this action. 1 substantially justified. (Id. at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge noted “the Commissioner does 2 not argue that the position of the government was substantially justified or that special 3 circumstances exist that make an award unjust.” (Id.) Thus, the magistrate judge found “Plaintiff 4 is entitled to an award of fees pursuant to the EAJA.” (Id.) 5 Evaluating the reasonableness of the fees requested, the magistrate judge found counsel’s 6 hourly rates were reasonable. (Doc. 25 at 4.) The magistrate judge observed the 57.2 hours of 7 attorney time on the action was high, though the results obtained favored an award. (Id. at 7-8.) 8 Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court exercise its discretion to impose a 10% 9 reduction to the fees requested. (Id., citing Mitford v. Kijakazi, 2021 WL 6052006, at *4 (N.D. 10 Cal. Dec. 21, 2021); see also id. at 4, citing Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 11 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) [indicating the Court may take a 10% reduction of fees “based purely on the 12 exercise of its discretion and without more specific explanation”].) Finally, the magistrate judge 13 recommended fees be payable to counsel, pursuant to Plaintiff’s assignment, if she does not owe a 14 government debt that qualifies for an offset. (Id. at 8-9.) 15 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 16 any objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 25 at .9) The Court advised the parties that the 17 failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 18 (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Plaintiff nor the 19 Commissioner filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 20 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 21 Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 22 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 23 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 9, 2024 (Doc. 25) are 24 ADOPTED in full. 25 2. Plaintiff’s motion fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. 20) is 26 GRANTED in part. 27 3. Plaintiff is AWARDED fees in the modified amount of $12,498.32. 28 4. If the government determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt that 1 qualifies for offset, then the fee award shall be made payable to Plaintiff's counsel 2 pursuant to Plaintiff's assignment of her interest in the fee award. 3 5 | Dated: _ April 29, 2024 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(SS) Montoya v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Montoya v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.