1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 JEANNIE DUTRAFEREA, Case No. 2:17-cv-01729-RFB-BNW

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, 11 Defendants. 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Jeannie Dutraferea’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under the 13 Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) and Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to

406(b). ECF Nos. 32, 35. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff Dutraferea challenged Defendant’s final decision denying her application for 17 social security benefits. ECF No. 20. On February 15, 2018, the Court found in favor of Plaintiff 18 Dutraferea and ordered the matter to be remanded to the Administration for award and calculation 19 of benefits. ECF No. 27. 20 Plaintiff Dutraferea now moves for attorney fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412—the EAJA— 21 and under

(b) of the Social Security Act. ECF Nos. 32,35. Specifically, Plaintiff 22 Dutraferea seeks $5,080.72 under the EAJA and $14,161.00 under

(b) for attorney 23 in fees and expenses payable to Plaintiff. The Commissioner does not oppose either motion for 24 attorney fees. 25 II. DISCUSSION 26 The EAJA provides that a prevailing party other than the United States should be awarded 27 attorney's fees and other expenses that party incurs in any civil action by or against the United 28 1 States “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or 2 that special circumstances make an award unjust.”

(d)(1)(A). A district court's 3 award of EAJA attorney fees must be reasonable. Sorenson v. Mink,

(9th 4 Cir. 2001). In assessing reasonableness, courts examine the number of hours reasonably expended 5 on the case, the reasonable hourly rate, and the level of success achieved by the plaintiff.

at 6 1145, 1147 (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart,

(1983)). 7 The Court finds that the requested fees under the EAJA are reasonable. This matter consists 8 of a 598-page record, which analyzes medical impairments, medical assessments, and decisions of 9 law by administrative law judges and the Commissioner. The Court therefore awards the requested 10 $5,080.72 requested under the EAJA. 11 Plaintiff Dutraferea’s counsel seeks attorney fees under

(b) based on the 12 contingency-fee agreement between Plaintiff Dutraferea and her counsel. Counsel requests 13 $14,161.00, which is 16% of the past-due benefits awarded as a result of Dutraferea’s successful 14 challenge to the Commissioner’s decision. Under § 406(b), the Court may award a fee of up to 15 25% of the past-due benefits awarded.

(a)(2)(A)(ii)(I). The fee must be reasonable. 16 Crawford v. Astrue,

(9th Cir. 2009); see also Gisbrecht v. Barnhart,

(2002). The Court finds the contingency fee reasonable under Gisbrecht based on the contingency 18 nature of the representation, the time spent on the matter, and the result obtained by counsel. 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Wl. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS ORDERED that is Plaintiff Jeannie Dutraferea’s Motion for Attorney Fees Under 3| the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED. The Court awards 4| $5,080.72 in attorney fees and costs under the EAJA to Plaintiff Dutraferea, which shall be made 5 | payable to her. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Jeannie Dutraferea’s Motion for Attorney Fees Pursuant to

(b) (ECF No. 35) is GRANTED. The Court awards $14,161.00 8 | in attorney fees and costs pursuant to

(b) . The fees shall be made payable to 9| Plaintiff Dutraferea. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time (ECF No. 31) is 11) DENIED as moot. 12 13 DATED June 2, 2021. 14 15 RICHA ; LWARE, II 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-