Opinion

(SS) Davila v. Commissioner of Social Security

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Jun 29, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.3%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 JACQUELINE DAVILA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01816-HBK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER

13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT1

14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING (Doc. No. 21)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

15 SECURITY,

16 Defendant.

17

18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees filed on June 13, 2023.

19 (Doc. No. 21). Plaintiff requests an award attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney,

20 Kelsey M. Brown of Mackenzie Legal, PLLC, in the amount of $5,357.59 pursuant to the Equal

21 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.).

22 On March 15, 2023, this Court granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

23 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for

24 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 19). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc.

25 No. 20). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)

26 & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.

27 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§636(c)(1). (Doc. No.15).

28

1 | 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42

2 | U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner did not respond to Plaintiffs request,

3 | and the deadline for doing so has passed.

4 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in

5 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28

6 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party

7 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances

8 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was

9 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an

10 | award unjust.

11 Plaintiff requests an award of $5,357.59 in EAJA fees for 22.95 hours of attorney time.

12 | (Doc. No. 21-1). The Court finds an award of $5,357.59 is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses,

13 | and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as

14 | discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the Commissioner determines upon

15 | effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under

16 | the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel.

17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

18 1. Plaintiffs motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED.

19 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in

20 | the amount of $5,357.59 in attorney fees. Unless the Department of Treasury determines that

21 | Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's

22 || counsel, Kelsey M. Brown of Mackenzie Legal, PLLC, in accordance with Plaintiffs assignment

23 || of fees.

** | Dated: __June 28, 2023 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte

5 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.