1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KANHA PHOUNSAVATH, Case No. 1:23-cv-01436-HBK1 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER 13 v. THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL (Doc. No. 19) SECURITY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees 18 filed on March 12, 2025. (Doc. No. 19). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and 19 expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Francesco P. Benavides of the Law Offices of Francesco 20 Benavides, in the amount of $7,500.00 in attorney fees and expenses, pursuant to the Equal 21 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

, and $402.00 in costs under

. 22 (Id.). 23 On March 6, 2025, this Court remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of

405(g) to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 17). Judgment 25 was entered the same day. (Doc. No. 18). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the 26 1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 27 §636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 16).

28 1 | prevailing party. See

(a) & (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see

| 1920; cf Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993) (concluding that a party who wins a 3 | sentence-four remand order under

(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner 4 | does not oppose the requested relief. 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 6 | civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2412(d)C1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party 8 | unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances 9 | make such an award unjust.” Jd. Here, the government did not show its position was 10 | substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an 11 | award unjust. Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $7,500.00 in attorney fees 12 | and expenses, and $402.00 in costs, is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to 13 | any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 14 |

(2010). If the Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that 15 | Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be 16 | delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff's counsel. 17 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 18 1. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED. 19 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in 20 | the amount of $7,500.00 in attorney fees and expenses, and $402.00 in costs. Unless the 21 | Department of Treasury determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make 22 || payment of the EAJA fees to Plaintiff's counsel, Francesco P. Benavides of the Law Offices of 23 || Francesco Benavides, in accordance with Plaintiff's assignment of fees and subject to the terms of 24 | the stipulated motion. °° | Dated: _ March 18, 2025 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28