1 2 3 4 5 6 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

10 EVELIA GUTIERREZ de GARCIA, Case No. 1:22-cv-00255-SKO

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR

12 v. ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

13 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, (Doc. 24) 14 Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 _____________________________________/

17 On May 31, 2023, after entry of the parties’ stipulated Order for Voluntary Remand Pursuant 18 to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and entry of judgment for Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed a motion 19 for an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) in the amount of 20 $9,679.01. (See Doc. 24 at 6 (seeking an award of $9,679.01 in total fees (41.4 hours in attorney 21 time).) On June 1, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant’s opposition, if any, to be filed by no later 22 than June 14, 2023. (Doc. 25.) No opposition has been filed, (See Docket), and the motion is 23 deemed unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s application for EAJA fees is 24 GRANTED. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff filed this action on March 1, 2022, seeking judicial review of a final administrative 27 decision denying her application for Social Security disability benefits. (Doc. 1.) On February 24, 28 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation for Voluntary Remand to Agency Pursuant to Sentence Four of 1 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and Entry of Judgment for (the “Stipulation for Remand”), which provided that 2 “[u]pon remand, the Agency will vacate the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, re-evaluate the 3 evidence, and issue a new decision.” (Doc. 21.) On February 28, 2023, the Court entered an Order 4 remanding the action to the Commissioner of Social Security “for further proceedings consistent 5 with the terms of the [Stipulation for Remand]” (the “Order of Remand”). (Doc. 22.) 6 On May 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for EAJA fees, seeking a total award of $9,679.01. 7 (See Doc. 24 at 6 (seeking an award of $9,679.01 in total fees (41.4 hours in attorney time).) No 8 opposition was filed. It is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees under the EAJA that is currently 9 pending before the Court. 10 II. LEGAL STANDARD 11 The EAJA provides that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses 12 . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States . . . unless 13 the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special 14 circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 15 535 U.S. 789, 796 (2002). “It is the government’s burden to show that its position was substantially 16 justified or that special circumstances exist to make an award unjust.” Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 17 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 A “party” under the EAJA is defined as including “an individual whose net worth did not 19 exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(B)(i). The term 20 “fees and other expenses” includes “reasonable attorney fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “The 21 statute explicitly permits the court, in its discretion, to reduce the amount awarded to the prevailing 22 party to the extent that the party ‘unduly and unreasonably protracted’ the final resolution of the 23 case.” Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 987 (9th Cir.1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(C) & 24 2412(d)(2)(D)). 25 A party who obtains a remand in a Social Security case is a prevailing party for purposes of 26 the EAJA. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300–01 (1993) (“No holding of this Court has ever 27 denied prevailing-party status . . . to a plaintiff who won a remand order pursuant to sentence four 28 of § 405(g) . . . , which terminates the litigation with victory for the plaintiff”). “An applicant for 1 disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the purposes of the EAJA if the denial of her 2 benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded.” 3 Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1257. 4 III. ANALYSIS 5 There is no dispute Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this litigation. The Court finds Plaintiff 6 did not unduly delay this litigation, and Plaintiff’s net worth did not exceed two million dollars when 7 this action was filed. The Court further finds, in view of the Acting Commissioner’s assent to the 8 Order of Remand, that the position of the government was not substantially justified. See Knyazhina 9 v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (finding no 10 substantial justification where the parties stipulated to a remand of the action to the Commissioner 11 for a new hearing) (citing Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013) (position of the 12 government “includes both the government’s litigation position and the underlying agency action 13 giving rise to the civil action.”)); Armstrong v. Astrue, No. CIV S-07-1456 DAD, 2008 WL 14 2705023, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2008). 15 Plaintiff seeks a total award of $9,679.01, comprised of 41.4 hours in attorney time. (Doc. 16 24 at 6.) The Acting Commissioner has not opposed this request. (See Docket.) The EAJA provides 17 for an award of “reasonable” attorney fees. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). By statute, hourly rates for 18 attorney fees under EAJA are capped at $125 per hour, but district courts are permitted to adjust the 19 rate to compensate for increases in the cost of living.1 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A); Sorenson v. Mink, 20 239 F.3d 1140, 1147-49 (9th Cir. 2001); Atkins, 154 F.3d at 987. Determining a reasonable fee 21 “requires more inquiry by a district court than finding the ‘product of reasonable hours times a 22 reasonable rate.’” Atkins, 154 F.3d 988 (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). 23 The district court must consider “the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the 24 results obtained.” Id. at 989. 25

26 1 In accordance with the formula set forth in Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876–77 (9th Cir. 2005), the Ninth Circuit maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized under the EAJA, as adjusted annually to 27 incorporate increases in the cost of living. The rates are found on that court’s website: https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates. Plaintiff requests an hourly rate of $217.54 for 28 attorney work performed in 2021, and an hourly rate of $234.95 for attorney work performed in 2022 and 2023. (See 1 Here, Plaintiff’s attorney obtained an order remanding the action for further administrative 2 action, which is a good outcome for Plaintiff. (Docs. 21 & 22.) There is no indication that a 3 reduction of the award is warranted due to any substandard performance by Plaintiff’s counsel, as 4 counsel secured a successful result for Plaintiff. There is also no evidence that Plaintiff’s counsel 5 engaged in any dilatory conduct resulting in delay. 6 After having reviewed counsel’s declaration (see Doc. 24-2), the Court finds the claimed 7 total of 41.4 attorney hours represents a reasonable amount of time for an attorney to expend on this 8 particular matter, see, e.g., Vallejo v. Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-3088 KJN, 2011 WL 4383636, at *4 (E.D. 9 Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (declining to “conduct a line-by-line analysis” of billing entries to determine 10 all 62.6 hours of attorney time spent on the litigation were justified), and are well within the limit 11 of what would be considered a reasonable amount of time spent on this action when compared to 12 the time devoted to similar tasks by counsel in similar Social Security appeals before this court, 13 Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting “[m]any district 14 courts have noted that twenty to forty hours is the range most often requested and granted in social 15 security cases”) (citing Patterson v. Apfel, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214 n.2 (C.D. Cal. 2000) 16 (collecting district court cases)); see also Thompson v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-01850-AC, 2015 WL 17 1767733, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2015) (finding 63.4 hours to be reasonable); Boulanger v. Astrue, 18 2:07-cv-0849-DAD, 2011 WL 4971890, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2011) (finding 58 hours to be a 19 reasonable amount of time); Valleyjo v. Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-03088 KJN, 2011 WL 4383636, at *5 20 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2011) (finding 62.1 hours to be reasonable). 21 Plaintiff will be awarded EAJA fees for 41.1 total attorney hours for time spent on the 22 litigation, for a total EAJA award in the amount of $9,679.01.2 23 IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 24 For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for EAJA 25

26 2 Plaintiff requests that the fees awarded be made payable to and sent to the law offices of Plaintiff’s attorney. (See Doc. 24.) Courts in this district routinely order payment directly to counsel so long as the plaintiff does not have a debt 27 that is subject to offset and he assigned his right to EAJA fees to counsel. See Young v. Berryhill, No. 2:14–cv–2585– EFB, 2017 WL 4387315, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017) (collecting cases). Here, Plaintiff assigned her right to EAJA 28 fees to her attorney. (Doc. 24-1.) Accordingly, should Plaintiff not have a debt that is subject to offset, the award of 1 fees is GRANTED in the amount of $9,679.01. 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

4 Dated: June 22, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28