Hernandez v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Steve B. Chu (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' second joint motion for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the thirty-day filing period for EAJA fees had not yet begun to run, as the sixty-day appeal period from the April 23, 2025 judgment had not expired.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Attorney's 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 (ECF No. 29) is denied without prejudice.“Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the rule that the EAJA filing deadline is triggered by the expiration of the time to appeal. Since the judgment was entered on April 23, 2025, the appeal period runs until June 23, 2025. Therefore, the motion filed on or before April 23, 2025 (implied by the order date and context of 'second joint motion' likely filed shortly after judgment) is premature. Denying without prejudice allows the parties to refile once the deadline opens. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It accurately identifies the statutory deadline and the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent (Van) regarding when the clock starts. The calculation of the dates (April 23 entry + 60 days = June 23) is correct. The remedy (denial without prejudice) is appropriate for a premature filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RAMON H., Case No.: 21-cv-0225-SBC 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE JOINT MOTION FOR 13 ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner 14 EXPENSES PURSUANT TO THE of Social Security, EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 15 Defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS 16 PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. § 1920 [ECF NO. 29] 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is the parties’ second joint motion for the award of 20 attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 21 2412(d) (“EAJA”) and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (ECF No. 29.) 22 Under the EAJA, the prevailing party must file an application for fees, expenses, and 23 costs within thirty days of a final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). The thirty-day 24 filing period does not begin to run until after the sixty-day appeal period in Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 4(a) has lapsed, “even when the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 26 following a sentence-six remand, has awarded benefits to a claimant who then obtains a 27 judgment to which the Commissioner consents in the district court.” Hoa Hong Van v. 28 Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 612 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 1 || 102 (1991) and Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 (1993)); see also Krebs v. Berryhill, Case 2 || No. 16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS), 2018 WL 2086151, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2018). 3 The judgment in this case was entered on April 23, 2025. (ECF No. 31.) The appeal 4 || period ends June 23, 2025. Thus, a motion for attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs under 5 EAJA is not timely until June 23, 2025. 6 Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The 7 || parties may re-file a joint motion in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and the other 8 || authorities set forth in this order at the appropriate time. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: April 23, 2025 YF A. 12 fon. SteveB.Chu 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28