1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 SHERI ANN COOK, Case No. 1:23-cv-01332-CDB

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

(d) AND 28 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, U.S.C. § 1920

15 Defendant. (Doc. 22)

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. 22). The parties agree to 20 an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff Sheri Ann Cook (“Plaintiff”), Melissa Newel, 21 in the amount of $6,580.28, pursuant to the EAJA,

(d).

Additionally, 22 counsel requests costs in the amount of $402.00 under

.

23 On March 7, 2024, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion for a voluntary remand 24 and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of

(g) to the Commissioner for 25 further administrative proceedings. (Doc. 20). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 21). 26 On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees and costs. (Doc. 22). 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. 22). 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 $6,580.28 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 22). 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 27 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 (914 pages) and preparing the type of summary judgment 23 motion Plaintiff’s counsel filed. (Docs. 12, 15). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s 24 counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further administrative 25 proceedings. (Docs. 20-21). 26 Under the EAJA, the Court also may award a judgment of costs to the prevailing party. 28 27

1 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1] U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1) (citing

). Costs include, among other things, court filing 2 | fees. See

; Armstrong v. Astrue, No. CW-S-07-1456-DAD,

, 3 | at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2008) (granting prevailing plaintiff's request for reimbursement of filing 4 | fee). 5 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 6 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). If the Commissioner 7 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 8 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 9 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. Plaintiffs stipulated request for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 22) 11 is GRANTED; and 12 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney fees in 13 the amount of $6,580.28 and costs in the amount of $402.00. Unless any offsets are 14 applied under TOP, the government shall make payment of the fees to Plaintiff's counsel 15 Melissa Newel, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms 16 of the stipulation. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 26, 2024 | Wr bo 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28