Olsen v. Kijakazi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN O.,1 Case No.: 22cv1652-LR 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING 13 v. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING REGARDING JOINT MOTION FOR 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, ATTORNEY FEES Commissioner of Social Security 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 20] 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for the award and payment of 19 attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 20 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF No. 20.) The parties jointly request that the Court award 21 Plaintiff Brian O. attorney fees in the amount of $5,435.11 pursuant to the EAJA. (See 22 id. at 1.) 23 Under the EAJA, a litigant is entitled to attorney fees and costs if: “(1) he is the 24 prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially 25 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees 26 27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and initial of the last name of the non- 28 1 and costs are reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005). In 2 assessing the third factor—whether the requested fees are reasonable—the Court looks to 3 whether the hourly rates and number of hours billed are reasonable. See, e.g., Beatriz B. 4 v. Saul, Case No.: 3:19-cv-785-AHG, 2020 WL 5203371, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 5 2020) (noting that attorney fees are awarded based on prevailing market rates for the kind 6 and quality of the services provided). 7 The parties here have not included a billing statement with their joint motion, or 8 any information regarding the number of hours billed, and at what rates. Because this 9 information is needed to assess the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Court 10 ORDERS the parties to submit a joint supplemental brief to include the names, 11 qualifications, experience, and hourly billing rates of all attorneys and paralegals who 12 worked on this case on Plaintiff’s behalf. The parties shall also attach Plaintiff’s billing 13 statement as an exhibit, which should include dates, time spent, attorney or paralegal 14 designation, descriptions of actions, and totals. The joint supplemental brief shall be 15 submitted no later than July 5, 2024. 16 Additionally, the parties request that if Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt 17 making the fees subject to any offset, payment of EAJA fees be made “directly to 18 Plaintiff’s counsel, William M. Kuntz, Esq., pursuant to the assignment executed by 19 Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 20 at 2.) Courts have generally allowed fee awards under the EAJA 20 to be paid directly to a plaintiff’s attorney where there is a valid assignment agreement 21 and the plaintiff does not owe a debt to the government. See, e.g., Darren C. v. Kilolo 22 Kijakazi, Case No.: 3:21-cv-01012-AHG, 2022 WL 17744073, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 23 2022) (noting that a fee award may be paid to directly to an attorney when a valid 24 assignment agreement is in place, subject “to any administrative offset due to outstanding 25 federal debt.”). The parties here, however, have not included the relevant assignment 26 agreement with their joint motion, and the Court declines to order that the payment of 27 fees and costs be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel without reviewing evidence of such 28 an assignment agreement. See, e.g., id. (declining to order that EAJA fees be paid to the 1 || Plaintiff's counsel because the parties failed to produce evidence of an assignment 2 ||agreement). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to provide evidence of the 3 || assignment agreement in the supplemental brief discussed above. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED 5 ||Dated: June 25, 2024 6 LY 8 Honorable Lupe Rodriguez, Jr. 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28