Townley v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jill L. Burkhardt (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the plaintiff and the Commissioner of Social Security for an award of attorney fees and costs following a sentence four remand. The court granted the motion, awarding the plaintiff $7,000 in attorney fees and $400 in costs.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion for attorney fees and costs granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and AWARDS Plaintiff $7,000.00 in attorney fees and expenses pursuant to EAJA and $400.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the three-part test for EAJA fees: (1) Plaintiff is a prevailing party because she obtained a sentence four remand; (2) The government did not show its position was substantially justified; and (3) The fees are reasonable. The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent (Akopyan, Carbonell) to establish that a sentence four remand constitutes prevailing party status and that the motion was timely. The stipulated amount of $7,000 is supported by the court's citation to similar cases in the district. The reasoning is legally sound and follows the cited authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for EAJA fees in Social Security cases, cites binding Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority to establish prevailing party status and timeliness, and supports the reasonableness of the fee amount with comparable district court decisions. The joint nature of the motion simplifies the analysis, and the court's findings align with the undisputed facts presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 CINDY T., Case No.: 21-cv-00005-JLB 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 15 v. MOTION FOR THE AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES 16 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting AND EXPENSES PURSUANT TO Commissioner of Social Security, 17 THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE Defendant. ACT 18 19 [ECF No. 18] 20 21 On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff Cindy T. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking judicial 22 review of the denial of her application for social security disability benefits by the 23 Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”). (ECF Nos. 1, 7.) The 24 Commissioner filed the administrative record on September 9, 2021. (ECF No. 7.) 25 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a merits brief (ECF No. 13), and the Commissioner filed an 26 opposition (ECF No. 16). On September 23, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s merits 27 brief, reversed the decision of the Commissioner, and remanded the matter for further 28 administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (ECF No. 17.) 1 Now before the Court is a joint motion for the award and payment of attorney fees 2 and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), 3 and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (ECF No. 18.) The parties jointly ask the Court 4 to award Plaintiff attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $7,000.00 and costs in the 5 amount of $400. (Id. at 1–2.) This amount represents compensation for all legal services 6 rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection with this action. (Id. at 2.) 7 A litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees under the EAJA if: “(1) [s]he is the prevailing 8 party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially justified or that 9 special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and costs are 10 reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Perez–Arellano 11 v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). “A 12 plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), even when further 13 administrative review is ordered, “is considered a prevailing party for purposes of 14 attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Schalala 15 v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297–98, 301–02 (1993)). 16 The prevailing party is eligible to seek attorney’s fees within thirty days of final 17 judgment in the action. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B). “A sentence four remand becomes a 18 final judgment, for purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the EAJA, upon 19 expiration of the time for appeal.” Akopyan, 296 F.3d at 854 (citation omitted) (citing 20 Schaefer, 509 U.S. at 297). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), the 21 time for appeal expires sixty days after entry of judgment if one of the parties is a 22 United States officer sued in an official capacity. Therefore, a motion for attorney’s fees 23 filed after a sentence four remand is timely if filed within thirty days after Rule 4(a)’s sixty- 24 day appeal period has expired. Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 602 (9th Cir. 25 2007). 26 Here, the Court finds that the parties’ joint motion is timely, Plaintiff is the prevailing 27 party in this action, the Commissioner has not met her burden of showing her position was 28 substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust, and the 1 stipulated amount of fees is reasonable.! Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ 2 ||joint motion and AWARDS Plaintiff $7,000.00 in attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 3 EAJA and $400.00 in costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: February 9, 2023 - bande 6 n. Jill L. Burkhardt 7 ited States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||! See, e.g., Juanita R. v. Kijakazi, No. 21-cv-1296-MDD, 2023 WL 1453156, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2023) (finding $7,500 in fees and expenses reasonable after remand in 6 the plaintiff's favor); Darren Jeffrey C. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-01012-AHG, 2022 WL 27 || 17826795, at *2—-4 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022) (finding $9,400 in fees and $402 in filing 28 costs reasonable after remand in the plaintiff's favor); see also ECF No. 1 ($402 filing fee paid in this case).