Clayton v. Colvin
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' joint motion for an award of Equal Access to Justice Act fees and expenses in a Social Security case. The court granted the motion, awarding $7,500.00 in fees and $405.00 in costs.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees and Expenses“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that fees and expenses in the amount $7,500.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and $405.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court found the requested rates consistent with statutory maximums and district norms, and the hours reasonable. In the context of a joint motion where the parties have agreed on the amount and the court performs a basic reasonableness check against statutory caps and local precedent, the decision follows from the recited record. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard disposition of a joint motion for EAJA fees. It cites the relevant statutes and a district court case for rate reasonableness. It does not need to address complex legal arguments because the parties are in agreement and the court is merely verifying compliance with statutory caps and local norms. The reasoning is sufficient for this procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 24-cv-2257-DMS-JLB 11 EDWARD W. CLAYTON, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. MOTION FOR THE AWARD AND 13 PAYMENT OF EQUAL ACCESS TO LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner 14 JUSTICE ACT FEES AND of Social Security, EXPENSES 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for the Award and Payment of 19 Equal Access to Justice Act Fees and Expenses. (ECF No. 13). The Court finds that the 20 rates requested are consistent with the statutory maximum hourly rates, as described by the 21 Ninth Circuit. See Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, U.S. CTS. 22 FOR THE NINTH CIR., https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ 23 (last visited Mar. 5, 2025). The parties’ requested legal assistance rate is also consistent 24 with legal assistant or paralegal rates awarded in this district. See Durruthy v. Charter 25 Commc’ns, LLC, No. 20-CV-01374-W-MSB, 2021 WL 6883423, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 26 2021) (collecting cases). The Court also finds that hours expended by Plaintiff’s counsel 27 to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that fees and expenses in the amount 28 1 $7,500.00 as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and $405.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. 2 || § 1920, be awarded subject to the terms of the Joint Motion. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: March 5, 2025 5 rn Yn « 6 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw > United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28