1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 CINDY T., Case No.: 21-cv-00005-JLB

14 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

15 v. MOTION FOR THE AWARD AND

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES

16 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting

AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO

Commissioner of Social Security, 17 THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE Defendant. ACT 18

19 [ECF No. 18] 20 21 On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff Cindy T. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking judicial 22 review of the denial of her application for social security disability benefits by the 23 Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) The 24 Commissioner filed the administrative record on September 9, 2021. (ECF No. 7.) 25 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a merits brief (ECF No. 13), and the Commissioner filed an 26 opposition (ECF No. 16). On September 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s merits 27 brief, reversed the decision of the Commissioner, and remanded the matter for further 28 administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 17.) 1 Now before the Court is a joint motion for the award and payment of attorney fees 2 and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 3 and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (ECF No. 18.) The parties jointly ask the Court 4 to award Plaintiff attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $7,000.00 and costs in the 5 amount of $400. (Id. at 1–2.) This amount represents compensation for all legal services 6 rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this action. (Id. at 2.) 7 A litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA if: “(1) [s]he is the prevailing 8 party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially justified or that 9 special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and costs are 10 reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Perez–Arellano 11 v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). “A 12 plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), even when further 13 administrative review is ordered, “is considered a prevailing party for purposes of 14 attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Schalala 15 v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297–98, 301–02 (1993)). 16 The prevailing party is eligible to seek attorney’s fees within thirty days of final 17 judgment in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). “A sentence four remand becomes a 18 final judgment, for purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the EAJA, upon 19 expiration of the time for appeal.” Akopyan, 296 F.3d at 854 (citation omitted) (citing 20 Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 297). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), the 21 time for appeal expires sixty days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is a 22 United States officer sued in an official capacity. Therefore, a motion for attorney’s fees 23 filed after a sentence four remand is timely if filed within thirty days after Rule 4(a)’s sixty- 24 day appeal period has expired. Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 602 (9th Cir. 25 2007). 26 Here, the Court finds that the parties’ joint motion is timely, Plaintiff is the prevailing 27 party in this action, the Commissioner has not met her burden of showing her position was 28 substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust, and the 1 stipulated amount of fees is reasonable.! Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ 2 ||joint motion and AWARDS Plaintiff $7,000.00 in attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 3 EAJA and $400.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: February 9, 2023 - bande 6 n. Jill L. Burkhardt 7 ited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||! See, e.g., Juanita R. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-1296-MDD, 2023 WL 1453156, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023) (finding $7,500 in fees and expenses reasonable after remand in 6 the plaintiff's favor); Darren Jeffrey C. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-01012-AHG, 2022 WL 27 || 17826795, at *2—-4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022) (finding $9,400 in fees and $402 in filing 28 costs reasonable after remand in the plaintiff's favor); see also ECF No. 1 ($402 filing fee paid in this case).