Boudreaux v. Saul
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint stipulation by the parties for an award of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) following a sentence four remand. The court granted the motion and awarded the plaintiff $4,800 in attorney's fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Stipulation for Award of Attorney’s Fees and awarding $4,800 to the Plaintiff.“Based upon the Joint Stipulation, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion and awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the EAJA. The plaintiff is a prevailing party because the case was remanded under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), as established in Akopyan v. Barnhart and Shalala v. Schaefer. The motion was timely, and the stipulated amount was reasonable because the hourly rate was below the Ninth Circuit's statutory maximums. The decision follows logically from the cited authorities and the stipulated facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate binding authorities for the Ninth Circuit regarding prevailing party status and fee caps. It accurately reflects the stipulation and the procedural history (sentence four remand).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN B., Case No.: 3:20-cv-00274-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. STIPULATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL 14 ANDREW SAUL, ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (28 15 Defendant. U.S.C. § 2412(d))
16 [ECF 23, 25] 17 18 On January 19, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation for Award of Attorney’s 19 Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, stipulating to an award to Plaintiff of 20 attorneys’ fees of $4,800 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 21 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (ECF 23, 25.) 22 The EAJA allows a prevailing party to seek attorney’s fees from the United States 23 within thirty days of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). “A plaintiff who obtains a 24 sentence four remand is considered a prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees.” 25 Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 26 U.S. 292, 301–02 (1993))). And, the Ninth Circuit sets statutory maximum hourly rates 27 28 1 under the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of living. Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 2 || F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005); Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6.! 3 Here, this case was remanded on the parties’ Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand 4 || pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) on December 21, 2020, and Plaintiff's 5 ||counsel’s hourly rate is below the Ninth Circuit’s maximum hourly rates under the EAJA. 6 || (ECF 21-21 (Joint Motion and Entry of Judgment), 23 (Joint Motion for EAJA Fees), 25 7 ||(Supplement to Joint Motion with Assignment and Invoice).) Therefore, Plaintiff is the 8 || prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees, the joint motion is timely, and the Court 9 || finds the stipulated amount of fees reasonable. 10 Based upon the Joint Stipulation, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion 11 |/and awards attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,800. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: March 12, 2021 p / / on. Bernard G. Skomal 15 United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || ————————___—_—_—__ 26 Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, United States Courts 27 || for the Ninth Circuit, 28 https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039