1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GENARO VALENTINE MORALES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00614-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE 13 v. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT,

(d) 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, (Doc. 26) 15 Defendant.

16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulation for award of attorney’s fees pursuant to 19 the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

(d). (Doc. 26). The parties agree to 20 an award of attorney’s fees to Plaintiff Genaro Valentine Morales (“Plaintiff”) counsel, Jonathan 21 O. Peña in the amount of $6,500.00, pursuant to EAJA,

(d).

22 On January 10, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary 23 remand and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of

(g) to the 24 Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 24). Judgment was entered the 25 same day. (Doc. 25). On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees. 26 (Doc. 26). 27 Plaintiff requests an award of attorney fees and expenses as the prevailing party. Id.; see 1 four remand order under

(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s request is timely. 2 Van v. Barnhart,

(9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose the 3 requested relief. (Doc. 26). 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

(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 7 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 8 circumstances make such an award unjust.”

Here, the government did not show its position 9 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would 10 make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. 11 See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 12 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 13 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD,

5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 15 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,500.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 26). The Ninth Circuit 16 maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 17 increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales,

, 876-77 18 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the published maximum hourly rate 19 (244.62),1 the requested award would amount to approximately 26 hours of attorney time (not 20 accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate 21 with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the certified 22 administrative record in this case (1,271 pages) and preparing the type of summary judgment 23 motion Plaintiff’s counsel filed (raising three disputed legal issues) (Docs. 14, 18). With respect 24 to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for 25 further administrative proceedings. (Docs. 24, 25). 26 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 27

1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). If the Commissioner 2 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 3 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 5 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 26) is 6 GRANTED; and 7 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 8 the amount of $6,500.00. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 9 make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel Jonathan O. Pefia, in accordance with 10 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 11 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 11,2024 | D bo 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28