gno.law

Powers v. Saul

District Court, S.D. California · 3:20-cv-01029 · 2021-06-25 · Unknown

Proceeding
district
Area
civil
Panel
Michael M. Anello (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T23:00Z · confidence high

The parties jointly moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) following a sentence four remand in a Social Security appeal. The court granted the motion and awarded the plaintiff $3,700.00 in fees.

What the court decidedThe model
Granting the joint motion for attorney's fees and awarding $3,700.00 to the Plaintiff.
“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for attorney’s fees and AWARDS Plaintiff $3,700.00 pursuant to the EAJA.”
agree with court
The court correctly identifies the plaintiff as a prevailing party under the EAJA following a sentence four remand, as established by Ninth Circuit precedent. The court also correctly notes that the motion is timely because the appeal period has expired, making the judgment final for EAJA purposes. The award of the stipulated amount is appropriate as the court found it reasonable.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents to determine that the plaintiff is a prevailing party and that the motion is timely. The reasoning is concise but complete for a joint motion for fees where the amount is stipulated and found reasonable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SARAH ANNE P., Case No.: 20-cv-1029-MMA (MDD) 11 ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES v. 13 [Doc. No. 20] ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of 14 Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On June 4, 2020, Sarah Anne P. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal 19 challenging the denial of her application for disability benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The 20 Court referred all matters arising in this social security appeal to the assigned Magistrate 21 Judge for report and recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 22 Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 4. Thereafter, the parties timely filed the 23 administrative record and Plaintiff filed her merits brief. See Doc. Nos. 11, 13. 24 On March 10, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued an R&R recommending that the 25 Court grant Plaintiff’s motion and remand the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. See 26 Doc. No. 17. The Court adopted the R&R in its entirety and remanded the matter to the 27 Social Security Administration pursuant to sentence four of 41 U.S.C. § 405(g) for 28 further administrative proceedings. See Doc. No. 18. That same day, the Clerk of Court 1 || entered judgment. See Doc. No. 19. The parties now jointly ask the Court to award 2 || Plaintiff $3,700.00 in attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 3 || CEAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Doc. No. 20. 4 The EAJA allows a prevailing party to seek attorney’s fees from the United States 5 || within thirty days of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). “A sentence four remand 6 || becomes a final judgment, for purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the 7 || EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), upon expiration of the time for appeal.” Akopyan v. 8 || Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 9 (1993)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G); Melkonyan vy. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 10 || 102 (1991) (‘In sentence four cases, the filing period begins after the final judgment . . . 11 entered by the court and the appeal period has run, so that the judgment is no longer 12 || appealable.”). If one of the parties is the United States, either party may file a notice of 13 || appeal within sixty days of the order appealed from. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). “A 14 || plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand is considered a prevailing party for purposes 15 || of attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan, 296 F.3d at 854 (citing Shalala, 509 U.S. at 301-02). 16 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action for purposes 17 || of attorney’s fees, the parties’ joint motion 1s timely, and the stipulated amount of fees is 18 ||reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for attorney’s 19 || fees and AWARDS Plaintiff $3,700.00 pursuant to the EAJA. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 25, 2021 22 Waiheh lu - /dillr. 23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 34 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28