1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JESUS RIOS JAURIQUE, Case No. 1:23-cv-01663-JLT-CDB (SS)

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. 14) 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. 14). The parties agree to 20 an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff Jesus Rios Jaurique (“Plaintiff”), Jonathan 21 Omar Peña, in the amount of $849.73, pursuant to the EAJA,

(d).

22 On January 19, 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. 12). Judgment was entered the 25 same day. (Doc. 13). On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees. 26 (Doc. 14). 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. 14). 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 $849.73 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 14). 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- 18 77 (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 3.5 hours of attorney time (not 20 accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate 21 with the minimal time expended by counsel in this case, as the parties have stipulated to remand 22 without the need to file a motion for summary judgment, or without needing to prepare and file 23 dispositive motions. With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable 24 judgment remanding the case for further administrative proceedings. (Docs. 11-12). 25 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 26 Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). If the Commissioner 27

1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 2 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 14) is 5 GRANTED; and 6 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 7 the amount of $849.73. Unless any offsets are applied under TOP, the government shall 8 make payment of the fees to Plaintiffs counsel Jonathan Omar Pefia, in accordance with 9 Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of the stipulation. 10 IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 22, 2024 | D 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28