Augustine

Augustine v. Berryhill

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaAugust 21, 20243:17-cv-00238California5,226 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Darrell J. Augustine’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for attorney’s fees filed April 24, 2024, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 35 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). On May 23, 2024, Defendant Martin O’Malley, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant” or “Commissioner”), filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. ECF No. 39 (“Opp’n”). On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply. ECF No. 40 (“Reply”). The Motion is decided on the parties’ briefs without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. /// /// BACKGROUND This case originates from Plaintiff’s applications for social security disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental social security income (“SSI”) filed on April 1 and 17, 2013. ECF No. 31 (“R. & R.”) at 2. Plaintiff alleges that his disabilities (including HIV, diabetes mellitus, Hepatitis C, osteoarthritis of the right hand, peripheral neuropathy of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.