Wezer Regis Batista de Miranda v. Christopher LaRose, et al.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Wezer Regis BATISTA DE MIRANDA, Case No.: 25-cv-3019-AGS-MSB 4 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 5 v. (ECF 11) 6 Christopher LaROSE, 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 11.) The EAJA mandates that a court shall “award to a prevailing 11 party” “fees and expenses incurred in a civil action brought by or against the United States, 12 unless 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. (See ECF 19 (requiring that “Respondents must 15 file any opposition to the pending motion by May 11, 2026”).) It is within the court’s 16 “discretion to determine that the government’s lack of timely opposition is tantamount to 17 a concession that its position in the litigation was not substantially justified.” Gwaduri v. 18 I.N.S., 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court concludes that the unopposed 19 number of hours listed—just over 30 for all staff—is reasonable given that the case was 20 fully briefed prior to respondents’ concession. (See ECF 11, at 13.) And the fact that the 21 number of hours is based on a reconstruction of counsels’ work does not change the court’s 22 conclusion. See Davis v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1542 (9th Cir. 23 1992), opinion vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Basing 24 the attorneys’ fee award in part on reconstructed records developed by reference to 25 litigation files and other records is not an abuse of discretion.”). 26 But the billing rate for the primary attorney is considerably higher than the Ninth 27 Circuit’s 2025 EAJA cap. Compare Statutory Maximum Rates Under the EAJA, U.S. 28 Courts for the Ninth Circuit, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum- 1 || rates/ (last visited May 26, 2026) (listing the 2025 maximum rate as “$258.46”); (with ECF 2 || 11, at 13 (requesting “$325.00” as the senior attorney’s hourly rate)). Although counsel 3 claims “specialized expertise in immigration detention litigation” (see ECF 11, at 10), he 4 || does not provide any evidence of this expertise, how long it has existed, or from whence it 5 || came. (See ECF 11-1 (counsel’s declaration omitting any discussion of his expertise).) So, 6 || plaintiff has not met his burden to overcome the presumptive statutory cap. See Natural 7 Def. Council v. Winter, 543 F.3d 1152, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Although 8 |}environmental litigation may constitute an identifiable practice specialty, Plaintiffs must 9 || first establish that their counsel had such a specialty.”). The Court reduces his proposed 10 || billing rate to $258.46, leading to a total of $2,171.06 for that attorney’s 8.4 hours of work 11 a reduced total of $6,908.24. 12 Finally, counsel requests that the EAJA fees be paid “directly to Gondim Law Corp. 13 |} pursuant to the executed assignment of fees.” (ECF 11, at 15.) But no such assignment has 14 || been provided. (See generally ECF 11.) So, that request 1s denied. 15 In sum, then, plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA is granted in the 16 |}amount of $6,908.24. The pending motion hearing is vacated. 17 || Dated: May 27, 2026

19 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28