1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JENNY S.,1 Case No.: 23-CV-2224 JLS (MSB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO Social Security , 15 THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE Defendant. ACT 16

17 (ECF Nos. 11, 12) 18 Presently before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for the Award and Payment 19 of Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“Mot.,” ECF 20 No. 11). Plaintiff Jenny S. filed a Supplemental Document (“Suppl.,” ECF Nos. 12, 12-1) 21 containing an excerpt of her fee agreement with her counsel, and an itemization of her 22 attorney’s time. Having carefully considered the Parties’ arguments and the applicable 23 law, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 27 28 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases arising under 1 BACKGROUND 2 On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) requesting 3 the Court set aside Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff disability insurance benefits. 4 The Parties then filed a Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand pursuant to

(g), 5 sentence four, see ECF No. 9, which this Court granted, see ECF No. 10. The instant 6 Motion followed, in which the Parties stipulate to an award of attorney’s fees in the amount 7 of $849.73 and costs in the amount of $0.00. Mot. at 2. The Parties also note that, though 8 the fees should be ordered payable to Plaintiff, the government will, after calculating any 9 offset, cause payment to be made to Plaintiff’s counsel Johnathan O. Peña per the 10 assignment executed by Plaintiff. Id.; see also Suppl. (containing fee agreement assigning 11 Equal Access to Justice Act attorney’s fees to Plaintiff’s counsel). The Supplement 12 indicates Plaintiff’s counsel spent two hours reviewing Plaintiff’s case and 1.5 hours 13 drafting the complaint and other documents.

14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 The Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) provides, in relevant part: 16 Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and 17 other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to 18 subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial 19 review of agency action, brought by or against the United States 20 in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially 21 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 22 23

(d)(1)(A). The EAJA also permits an award of costs to the prevailing 24 party in accordance with

. See

§ 2412(a)(1). 25 ANALYSIS 26 “Under the EAJA, attorneys’ fees are to be awarded to a party winning a sentence- 27 four remand unless the Commissioner shows that his position with respect to the issue on 28 which the district court based its remand was ‘substantially justified.’” Ulugalu v. 1 Berryhill, No. 17-cv-1087-GPC-JLB,

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

(9th Cir. 2002)). Defendant has stipulated 3 to an award of fees and does not argue that the Social Security Administration’s position 4 was substantially justified. The Court thus agrees with the Parties that fees are warranted 5 here. 6 The quantum of fees awarded under the EAJA is based upon prevailing market rates 7 for the kind and quality of the services provided.

(d)(2)(A). Such fees, 8 however, shall not exceed $125 per hour “unless the court determines that an increase in 9 the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys 10 for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.”

(d)(2)(A)(ii). For 11 2023, the Ninth Circuit’s statutory maximum rate under the EAJA, factoring in cost of 12 living, was $244.62. See Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 13 United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/ 14 statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited June 17, 2024). 15 Here, Plaintiff requests fees for 3.5 hours of attorney work at the hourly rate of 16 $242.78, totaling $849.73. See ECF No. 12-1. The Court finds both the rate—slightly less 17 than the Ninth Circuit’s 2023 maximum hourly rate under the EAJA—and the hours 18 expended to be reasonable. Cf. Ulugalu,

, at *3–4 (approving award of 19 fees at the then-prevailing Ninth Circuit EAJA rate for 25.3 attorney hours and 9.9 20 paralegal hours worked). Further, Defendant stipulates to an award of fees in the requested 21 amount. See Mot. at 2. Accordingly, the Court finds the fees requested by Plaintiff and 22 stipulated to by Defendant reasonable and awardable. 23 CONCLUSION 24 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 11) and 25 AWARDS to Plaintiff fees in the amount of $849.73. This award is subject to the terms 26 of the Motion, including any offset allowed under the United States Department of the 27 Treasury’s Offset Program as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

, 591–98 (2010). 28 Fees will be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines 1 || that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment of 2 || fees to be made directly to Plaintiffs counsel, Johnathan O. Pefia. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: June 24, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- 5 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28