1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JOSHUA CRUMP, Case No. 1:24-cv-00420-CDB (SS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR AWARD

OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE

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

16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the joint motion by Plaintiff Joshua Crump (“Plaintiff”) for the 19 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 $6,200.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Justin Prato.1 (Doc. 14). 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, Justin Prato. Id. at 2. 25 On August 9, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for voluntary remand 26 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 27

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 1 further proceedings. (Doc. 12). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 13). On October 2 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending joint motion for attorney fees as a prevailing party. (Doc. 3 14). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a 4 sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s filing is 5 timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose 6 the requested relief. (Doc. 14). 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 $6,200.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 14). 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 most recent published maximum 22 rate,2 the requested award would amount to approximately 25 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 (approximately 2,427 pages; Doc. 8) and preparing a motion 26 for summary judgment that includes six pages of argument. (Doc. 9 at 5-10). With respect to

27 2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited November 27, 1 | the results obtained, Plaintiffs counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for 2 | further proceedings. (Docs. 12, 13). 3 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 4 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 5 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 6 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 14) is 9 GRANTED; and 10 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 11 the amount of $6,200.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 12 14). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 13 determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 14 payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff's counsel, as set forth 15 in the stipulation. 16 [T IS SO ORDERED. '7) Dated: _ November 27, 2024 | Wr bo 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28