1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BETHANY K.,1 Case No.: 24cv710-LR

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER REQUIRING

13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON

JOINT MOTION FOR AWARD OF

14 MICHELLE KING,

ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 18] 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is the parties’ “Joint Motion for an Award of Attorney’s 19 Fees, Costs, and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).” (ECF 20 No. 18.) The parties jointly move the Court to award Plaintiff Bethany K. attorney fees 21 and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. (See id.) 22 Under the EAJA, a litigant is entitled to attorney fees and costs if: “(1) he is the 23 prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially 24 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees 25 and costs are reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005). In 26

27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under 42 28 1 assessing the third factor of whether the requested fees are reasonable, the Court looks to 2 whether the hourly rates and number of hours billed are reasonable. See, e.g., Beatriz B. 3 v. Saul, Case No.: 3:19-cv-785-AHG, 2020 WL 5203371, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 4 2020) (noting that attorney fees are awarded based on prevailing market rates for the kind 5 and quality of the services provided). 6 The parties here have not included a billing statement with their joint motion, or 7 any information regarding the number of hours billed, and at what rates. Because this 8 information is needed to assess the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Court 9 ORDERS the parties to submit a joint supplemental brief to include the names, 10 qualifications, experience, and hourly billing rates of all attorneys and paralegals who 11 worked on this case on Plaintiff’s behalf. The parties shall also attach Plaintiff’s billing 12 statement as an exhibit, which should include dates, time spent, attorney or paralegal 13 designation, descriptions of actions, and totals. The joint supplemental brief shall be 14 submitted no later than February 4, 2025. 15 In addition to the request for attorney fees, the parties request that if Plaintiff does 16 not owe a federal debt making the fees subject to an offset, any payments and costs be 17 delivered directly to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to an assignment agreement “executed 18 by Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Such a request is consistent with the governing law that 19 a fee award may be paid directly to a litigant’s attorney “where there has been a valid 20 assignment and the plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government.” Ulugalu v. 21 Berryhill, Case No.: 3:17-cv-01087-GPC-JLB, 2018 WL 2012330, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 22 30, 2018). The parties here, however, have not submitted the relevant assignment 23 agreement. The Court therefore, will not order the payment of fees and costs to be made 24 directly to Plaintiff’s counsel unless the parties provide evidence of their assignment 25 agreement in the joint supplemental brief as well. See, e.g., Darren C. v. Kijakazi, Case 26 No.: 3:21-cv-01012-AHG, 2022 WL 17744073, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2022) 27 (declining to order that the EAJA fees be paid to plaintiff’s counsel subject to any 28 administrative offset due to outstanding federal debt because the parties failed to produce 1 || evidence of an assignment agreement). If the parties would like the Court to include an 2 instruction that EAJA fees and costs be paid directly to Plaintiff's counsel, they are 3 || ORDERED to provide evidence of the assignment agreement in the joint supplemental 4 || brief. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: January 22, 2025 7 FY 9 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28