1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 LESLIE LYNNE TANKERSLEY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00029-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. 19) 15 Defendant.

16 17 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Leslie Lynne Tankersley 18 (“Plaintiff”) for the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 19 (“EAJA”),

(d), in the amount of $6,431.29 to counsel for Plaintiff, the 20 Olinksky Law Group.1 (Doc. 22). 21 The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 22 payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe 23 a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be 24 made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Olinksky Law Group. (Id. at 2). 25 On April 18, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and 26 remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of

(g) to the Commissioner for 27

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 1 further proceedings. (Doc. 19). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 20). On July 17, 2 2025, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney’s fees as a prevailing party. (Doc. 22). 3 See Shalala v. Schaefer,

(1993) (concluding that a party who wins a 4 sentence-four remand order under

(g) is a prevailing party). Plaintiff’s filing is 5 timely. Van v. Barnhart,

(9th Cir. 2007). 6 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 7 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 9 party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 10 circumstances make such an award unjust.”

Here, the government did not show its position 11 was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would 12 make an award unjust. Moreover, the Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief. 13 (Doc. 25). See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO,

, at *2 (E.D. 14 Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of 15 the Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD,

5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 17 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,431.29 in EAJA fees as authorized by

2412(d). (Doc. 22). The Ninth Circuit maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates 19 authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living, on its website. See 20 Thangaraja v. Gonzales,

(9th Cir. 2005). Assuming Plaintiff’s counsel 21 seeks the published maximum rate associated with the year the action was filed (2022) and 22 during which he engaged in services in this case (which is $234.95),2 the requested award would 23 amount to approximately 27.5 hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time 24 expended). The Court finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an 25 attorney would need to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case 26 (approximately 466 pages; Doc. 12-1), preparing a motion for summary judgment that includes 27

2 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at 1 | approximately ten pages of argument (Doc. 13 at 11-21), and preparing a reply brief that includes four pages of argument (Doc. 17 at 2-5). With respect to the results obtained, Plaintiff's counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further proceedings. 4} (Docs. 19, 20). 5 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff,

(2010). If the 7 | Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not 8 | subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted 9| to Plaintiff's counsel. 10 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Plaintiff's stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 22) is 12 GRANTED; and 13 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 14 the amount of $6,431.29, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 15 22). 16 3. Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines 17 that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the payment 18 of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiffs counsel, as set forth in the 19 stipulation. 20 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _July 18, 2025 | Word bo 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28