1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KATHLEEN SUSAN SHAW, Case No.: 22-CV-1701 JLS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 v. MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT Social Security Administration, 15 Defendant. (ECF Nos. 18 & 19) 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Kathleen Susan Shaw’s Motion for Attorney 19 Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Mot.,” ECF No. 18). Also before the 20 Court is Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration Kilolo Kijakazi’s 21 Stipulated Response to the Motion (“Stip.,” ECF No. 19), which indicates the Parties’ 22 agreement to an award of fees and expenses in the amount of $2,866.39 and costs in the 23 amount of $402.00 pursuant to

and 2414(d). Having considered the 24 Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 25 BACKGROUND 26 On November 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting the Court reverse and 27 set aside Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits. See ECF No. 28 1. After the filing of the Administrative Record but before the filing of a response to the 1 Complaint, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2 § 405(g), sentence four, see ECF No. 16, which this Court granted, see ECF No. 17. The 3 present Motion, see ECF No. 18, and Stipulation, see ECF No. 19, followed. 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) provides, in relevant part: 6 Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and 7 other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to 8 subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial 9 review of agency action, brought by or against the United States 10 in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially 11 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 12 13

(d)(1)(A). The EAJA also permits an award of costs to the prevailing 14 party in accordance with § 1920. See id. § 2412(a)(1). 15 ANALYSIS 16 “Under the EAJA, attorneys’ fees are to be awarded to a party winning a sentence- 17 four remand unless the Commissioner shows that his position with respect to the issue on 18 which the district court based its remand was ‘substantially justified.’” Ulugalu v. 19 Berryhill, No. 17-cv-1087-GPC-JLB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) 20 (quoting Lewis v. Barnhart,

(9th Cir. 2002)). Defendant has stipulated 21 to an award of fees and costs and does not argue that the Social Security Administration’s 22 position was substantially justified. The Court thus agrees with the Parties that fees are 23 warranted here. 24 The quantum of fees awarded under the EAJA is based upon prevailing market rates 25 for the kind and quality of the services provided.

(d)(2)(A). Such fees, 26 however, shall not exceed $125 per hour “unless the court determines that an increase in 27 the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys 28 for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.”

(d)(2)(A)(ii). For 1 || 2022, the Ninth Circuit’s statutory maximum rate under the EAJA, factoring in cost of 2 || living, was $234.95. See United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, Statutory Maximum 3 Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/ 4 || statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited Apr. 26, 2023). 5 Here, Plaintiff requests fees for 12.2 hours of attorney work at the hourly rate of 6 || $234.95, totaling $2,866.39. See ECF No. 18-1. The Court finds both the rate—the Ninth 7 || Circuit’s 2022 maximum hourly rate under the EAJA—and the hours expended to be 8 ||reasonable. Cf Ulugalu,

, at *3-4 (approving award of fees at the then- 9 || prevailing Ninth Circuit EAJA rate for 25.3 attorney hours and 9.9 paralegal hours 10 || worked). Further, Defendant stipulates to an award of fees in the requested amount. See 11 at 2. Accordingly, the Court finds the fees requested by Plaintiff and stipulated to by 12 || Defendant reasonable and awardable. 13 The Parties further stipulate to an award of $402.00 in costs under

. 14 || See Stip. at 2. The Court finds an award of costs in this amount, representing Plaintiffs 15 || filing costs in this action, reasonable and awardable as well. See

, 16 2412(a)(1). 17 CONCLUSION 18 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 18) and 19 || AWARDS to Plaintiff fees in the amount of $2,866.39 and costs in the amount of $402.00, 20 || subject to any offset allowed under the United States Department of the Treasury’s Offset 21 || Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: May 1, 2023 psi L. Lo meeaitie- on, Janis L. Sammartino 35 United States District Judge 26 27 28