Maya v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-02108 · 2024-06-07 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Barbara Lynn Major (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:30Z · confidence high

The court considered a joint motion by the plaintiff and defendant for an award of attorney's fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 following a sentence four remand. The court granted the motion, awarding the plaintiff $7,400.00 in attorney's fees and $402.00 in costs.

What the court decided	The model
Granting the Joint Motion for the Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and Costs Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 “the Court GRANTS the joint motion and AWARDS Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the total amount of $7,400.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and costs in the amount of $402.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920”	agree with court The court correctly identifies that a sentence four remand renders the plaintiff a prevailing party for EAJA purposes and that the motion was timely filed. The court finds the stipulated amount reasonable, which is the appropriate standard for a joint motion where the parties have agreed on the fee amount. The award follows from the statutory authority and the procedural posture described in the order.

What the court decided

The model

Granting the Joint Motion for the Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and Costs Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920

“the Court GRANTS the joint motion and AWARDS Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the total amount of $7,400.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and costs in the amount of $402.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920”

agree with court
The court correctly identifies that a sentence four remand renders the plaintiff a prevailing party for EAJA purposes and that the motion was timely filed. The court finds the stipulated amount reasonable, which is the appropriate standard for a joint motion where the parties have agreed on the fee amount. The award follows from the statutory authority and the procedural posture described in the order.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent from Akopyan v. Barnhart to establish that the plaintiff is a prevailing party and that the sentence four remand constitutes a final judgment for fee purposes. It correctly notes the timeliness of the motion based on the 60-day appeal window for cases involving the United States. The court's finding that the stipulated fees are reasonable is sufficient for a joint motion. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning provided.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 23CV2108-BLM 11 JULIO CESAR MAYA, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF 13 v. FEES AND EXPENSES PURUSANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, COMMISSIONER OF 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS SOCIAL SECURITY, 15 PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920 Defendant. 16 [ECF No. 22] 17 18 On November 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint in this matter seeking judicial review 19 of the denial of his application for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. ECF 20 No. 1 at 2. 21 On May 2, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand Pursuant To 22 Sentence Four Of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). ECF No. 19. On May 2, 2024, the Court granted the 23 parties’ Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand. ECF No. 20. 24 On June 6, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion for the Award Of Attorney Fees And 25 Expenses Pursuant To The Equal Access To Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) And Costs Pursuant 26 to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. ECF No. 22. 27 The EAJA allows a prevailing party to seek attorney’s fees from the United States within 1 || thirty days of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). “A sentence four remand becomes a final 2 ||judgment, for purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 3 || 2412(d), upon expiration of the time for appeal.” Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th 4 2002). If one of the parties is the United States, either party may file a notice of appeal 5 || within sixty days of the order appealed from. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). “A plaintiff who 6 || obtains a sentence four remand is considered a prevailing party for attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan, 7 F.3d at 854. Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action for purposes of attorney’s fees, 8 || the parties’ joint motion is timely, and the Court finds the stipulated amount of fees and expenses 9 || reasonable. 10 Having considered the joint motion and finding the stipulated amount of fees and 11 ||expenses reasonable, the Court GRANTS the joint motion and AWARDS Plaintiff attorney’s 12 || fees in the total amount of $7,400.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and costs in the amount 13 || of $402.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, subject to the terms of the parties’ joint motion 14 || [see ECF No. 22]. Fees will be made payable to Julio Cesar Maya, but if the Department of the 15 || Treasury determines that Julio Cesar Maya does not owe a federal debt, then the government 16 || will cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Law Offices of 17 || Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Inc., CPC. Any payments will be delivered to Denise Bourgeois Haley. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: 6/7/2024 lobe Mager 20 Hon. Barbara L. Major United States Maqistrate Judde 22 23 24 25 26 27 28