Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DAVID M., Case No.: 25-cv-1303-SBC 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 15 v. FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES UNDER THE 16 FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 17 Defendant. [Dkt. No. 18] 18 19 20 Plaintiff David M.1 moves for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice 21 Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1), and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 22 (Dkt. No. 18.) Defendant Commissioner of the Social Security Administration does not 23 oppose the request. (Dkt. No. 21.) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Petition for 24 Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses Under the EAJA is GRANTED. 25 / / / 26 27 1 The Court refers to Plaintiff using only his first name and last initial pursuant to the 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendant for judicial review 3 of a final adverse decision for social security benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 4 (Dkt. No. 1.) The 2,078-page Administrative Record was filed on July 21, 2025. 5 (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff filed his merits brief on August 26, 2025. (Dkt. No. 12.) On 6 September 19, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Voluntary Remand Pursuant to 7 Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and for Entry of Judgment (Dkt. No. 15.) The Court 8 granted the motion and entered judgment on September 22, 2025. (Dkt. Nos. 16-17.) 9 Plaintiff now moves for attorney fees totaling $5,623.04, based on 20.16 hours in 10 attorney time at the hourly rate of $251.84 ($5,077.09) and 3.05 hours in paralegal time at 11 an hourly rate of $179.00 ($545.95). (Dkt. No. 18 at 13.) Plaintiff additionally seeks 12 reimbursement of the $402.00 filing fee. Id. 13 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 14 To be eligible for attorney’s fees, the prevailing party seeking an award of EAJA 15 fees must submit an application to the court showing “the amount sought, including an 16 itemized statement . . . stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees . . . were 17 computed” and contending that “the position of the [government] was not substantially 18 justified.” 28 U.S.C § 2412(d)(1)(B). Unless the government’s position was “substantially 19 justified,” the EAJA requires the government to pay the fees and expenses of a “prevailing 20 party.” Id. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 21 The EAJA directs the court to award a reasonable fee. Id. § 2412(d)(2)(A). In 22 determining whether a fee is reasonable, the court considers the reasonable number of 23 hours expended, the reasonable hourly rate, and the results obtained. Atkins v. Apfel, 154 24 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1998). “[A] district court will always retain substantial discretion 25 in fixing the amount of an EAJA award.” Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 163 (1990). 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 A. Timeliness 3 Plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees is timely. The party seeking an award of 4 fees and costs has thirty days after a judgment becomes unappealable, i.e., thirty days after 5 the time for appeal has ended, to file an EAJA application. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 6 292, 302 (1993). The Court entered its order to remand this case on September 22, 2025, 7 and judgment was entered the same day. (Dkt. Nos. 16-17.) Plaintiff filed a motion for 8 attorney’s fees on December 22, 2025, within thirty days of the date the remand order was 9 no longer appealable. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (providing 60-day appeal period when 10 one of the parties is a United States officer or employee sued in an official capacity). 11 B. Prevailing Party and Substantial Justification 12 “[A] party who wins a sentence-four remand order is a prevailing party.” Shalala, 13 509 U.S. at 302. Because Plaintiff obtained a remand, Plaintiff is a prevailing party. 14 The Commissioner bears the burden of showing that its position was substantially 15 justified or that special circumstances exist to make an award unjust. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 16 274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001). The Commissioner does not contend that their 17 position was substantially justified. (Dkt. No. 21.) As such, Plaintiff is eligible for 18 attorney’s fees under the EAJA. 19 C. Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees 20 Although the Commissioner does not oppose Plaintiff’s request for fees, the Court 21 independently reviews the request for reasonableness. 22 First, the attorney’s fees component of the request for fees is reasonable. The EAJA 23 prescribes a default $125.00 hourly fee unless there is an increase in the cost of living or a 24 special factor that justifies a higher fee. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). The Ninth Circuit 25 sets out the statutory maximum for hourly fees adjusted for increases in the cost of living. 26 See Ninth Circuit, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ 27 [https://perma.cc/6TUA-J6SR] (last visited Feb. 18, 2026). For work performed in 2025, 28 the maximum hourly rate is $258.46. Id. The court may award up to this statutory 1 maximum. See, e.g. Matos v. Saul, 469 F.Supp.3d 934, 940 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court 2 finds this rate reasonable.”); Kari P. v. Saul, Case No. 19-cv-00956-JLB, 2021 WL 389818, 3 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (awarding cost of living increase in accordance with the 4 Ninth Circuit’s hourly EAJA rate); Bonnie B. v. Saul, Case No. 3:20-cv-00653-RBM, 2021 5 WL 780475, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) (same). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel’s itemized 6 statement shows that she performed 20.16 hours of legal work in 2025 at an hourly rate of 7 $251.84, totaling $5,077.09. The hourly rate charged is below the statutory maximum and 8 is therefore reasonable. Given the length of the record and a review of the billable entries, 9 the time expended is also reasonable. As such, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request for 10 $5,077.09 in attorney time to be reasonable. 11 Second, the paralegal’s fees component of the request is also reasonable. “A 12 prevailing party that satisfies EAJA’s other requirements may recover its paralegal fees 13 from the Government at prevailing market rates.” Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 14 U.S. 571, 590 (2007). As established, Plaintiff is a prevailing party and is eligible for an 15 EAJA award. Plaintiff’s counsel calculates the $179.00 paralegal hourly rate based on the 16 United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report’s average market rate for 17 paralegals, adjusted for inflation. (Dkt. No. 18 at 8.) This district has recognized this market 18 rate to be reasonable. See, e.g., Ulugalu v. Berryhill, Case No. 3:17-cv-01087-GPC-JLB, 19 2018 WL 2012330, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018) (relying on the United States Consumer 20 Law Attorney Fee Survey Report to independently find the reported $100.00 median hourly 21 rate for paralegals in 2018 reasonable); Sullivan v. Kijakazi, Case No. 3:23-cv-00480- 22 AHG, 2024 WL 4830985, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2024) (approving a $179.00 hourly 23 rate for paralegal time in 2025). Upon review of the itemized statement, the billed rate of 24 $179.00 an hour is reasonable, and the hours expended for the tasks described are also 25 reasonable. Plaintiff’s request for $545.95 in paralegal time is thus reasonable. 26 Taken together, the Court finds that the attorney’s fees totaling $5,623.04–– 27 $5,077.09 for 20.16 hours in attorney time at a $251.84 hourly rate, and $545.95 for 3.05 28 hours in paralegal time at a $179.00 hourly rate––is reasonable. 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the amount of attorney’s fees 3 |}and costs sought by Plaintiff is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs 4 || Petition for Attorney Fees for $5,623.04 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 5 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1), and $402.00 in costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: March 2, 2026 8 My FG. 10 Hon.SteveB.Chu 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28