1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 LANA KAE DARNELL, Case No. 1:24-cv-00683-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD

OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES

13 v. PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 18) 15 Defendant.

16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Lana Kae Darnell (“Plaintiff”) 19 for the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2412(d), in the amount of $7,000.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Francesco Benavides.1 (Doc. 18). 21 The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 22 payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe 23 a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be 24 made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Francesco Benavides. Id. at 2. 25 On October 11, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary 26 remand and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the 27

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 1 Commissioner for a favorable decision. (Doc. 16). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 2 17). On October 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees as a prevailing 3 party. (Doc. 18). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party 4 who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). 5 Plaintiff’s request is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The 6 Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. (Doc. 18). 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 request. 14 See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 15 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 $7,000.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 18). 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 rate 22 ($244.62),2 the requested award would amount to approximately 29 hours of attorney time (not 23 accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate 24 with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the certified 25 administrative record in this case (596 pages; Doc. 11) and preparing a motion for summary 26 judgment that raises three issues for the Court’s review. (Doc. 12 at 7). With respect to the

27 2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited October 23, 1 | results obtained, Plaintiffs counsel obtained a judgment remanding the case for a fully favorable 2 | decision, finding the Plaintiff disabled as of her application date of April 10, 2020. (Docs. 15 at 3 | 2, 16, 17). 4 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 5 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 6 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 7 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 18) 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 $7,000.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 13 18). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 14 determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 15 payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel, as set forth 16 in the stipulation. 17 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ October 24, 2024 | Wr bo 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28