Rodolfo Daniel GOMEZ GOMEZ v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner moved for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) after the government failed to oppose the request. The court granted the motion in part, awarding $5,098.97 based on reasonable hours and the statutory maximum rate.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Attorneys' Fees granted in part“Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA is granted in the amount of $5,098.97.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the EAJA framework. The lack of opposition was treated as a concession that the government's position was not substantially justified, which is a permissible exercise of discretion supported by Ninth Circuit precedent. The court independently verified that the hours were reasonable and that the requested rate matched the current statutory cap, ensuring the award was not excessive. |
Motion hearing vacated“The pending motion hearing is vacated.” | agree with court Since the motion was resolved on the papers without opposition, a hearing was unnecessary. Vacating the hearing is a standard procedural step to conserve judicial resources. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the elements of an EAJA claim: prevailing party status (implied by the context of the motion), lack of substantial justification (via concession due to non-opposition), and reasonableness of fees (hours and rate). It cites the correct statutory provision and binding Ninth Circuit precedent for the concession rule. The calculation is transparent.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Rodolfo Daniel GOMEZ GOMEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3674-AGS-AHG 4 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 5 v. (ECF 9) 6 Jeremy Casey, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner seeks attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2414(d). (See ECF 9.) The EAJA mandates that a court shall “award to a prevailing party” 11 “fees and expenses incurred in a civil action brought by or against the United States, unless 12 the government shows that its position was substantially justified or that special 13 circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). 14 Respondents filed no opposition. It is within the court’s “discretion to determine that 15 the government’s lack of timely opposition is tantamount to a concession that its position 16 in the litigation was not substantially justified.” Gwaduri v. I.N.S., 362 F.3d 1144, 1146 17 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court concludes that the unopposed number of hours listed—just 18 under 20 for all staff—is reasonable. (See ECF 9-1, at 4–5.) And the proposed billing rate 19 for the attorneys is the Ninth Circuit’s 2025 EAJA cap, so the Court also finds the rate is 20 reasonable. See Statutory Maximum Rates Under the EAJA, U.S. Courts for the Ninth 21 Circuit, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited 22 May 26, 2026) (listing the 2025 maximum rate as “$258.46”); (see also ECF 9-1, at 5 23 (requesting “258.46” as the attorneys’ hourly rate)). 24 Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees under the EAJA is granted in the amount of 25 $5,098.97. The pending motion hearing is vacated. 26 27 28 1 ||Dated: June 23, 2026 3 Hon. rew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28