Silva v. Commissioner of Social Security

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 JULIO CESAR S.,1 Case No.: 23-cv-2324-AJB-DEB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION 14 FRANK J. BISIGNANO, Commissioner FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER of Social Security,2 THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE — 15 — ACT (Doc. No. 23); AND Defendant. — 16 — (2) DENYING AS MOOT — 17 — PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 18 ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT — 19 — (Doc. No. 20) — 20 — 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Pursuant to the Equal 22 Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d), and the parties’ subsequent Joint 23 Motion for Fees Pursuant to the EAJA. (Doc. Nos. 20; 23.) The parties’ Joint Motion — 24 — — 25 — 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(e)(6)(b), “[o]pinions by the Court in [Social Security cases under — 26 — 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g)] will refer to any non-government parties by using only their first name and last initial.” — 27 — 2 Frank Bisignano became the Commissioner of Social Security on May 6, 2025. Frank Bisignano may — 28 — 1 is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 23.) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is DENIED AS 2 MOOT. (Doc. No. 20.) Fees and expenses in the amount of $6,072.00 as authorized by — 3 — 28 U.S.C. § 2412 , and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , are awarded subject to the terms 4 of the Joint Motion. 5 I. BACKGROUND 6 On December 21, 2023, Plaintiff Julio S. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint pursuant 7 to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), seeking judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security’s 8 (the “Commissioner’s”) denial of his application for social security disability insurance 9 benefits. (Doc. No. 1.) The Commissioner filed the administrative record on February 20, 10 2024. (Doc. No. 8.) On August 27, 2024, the parties filed their Joint Motion for Judicial 11 Review of the Final Decision of the Commissioner. (Doc. No. 17.) On February 3, 2025, 12 Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 13 (Doc. No. 18.) The R&R recommended granting the Joint Motion in Plaintiff’s favor 14 and remanding the matter back to the Commissioner for further administrative 15 proceedings. (Id.) The parties were instructed to file any written objections to the R&R no 16 later than February 18, 2025, and replies no later than February 25, 2025. (Id.) No 17 objections were filed. On February 26, 2025, the Court adopted the R&R and remanded 18 the case back to the Commissioner for further review pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). 19 (Doc. No. 19.) 20 On May 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court award Plaintiff 21 attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $6,391.99. (Doc. No. 20.) That same day, the 22 Court set a briefing schedule as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, requiring 23 responses to be filed by June 10, 2025, and replies by June 17, 2025. (Doc. No. 21.) Rather 24 than filing a response to Plaintiff’s Motion, the parties filed the instant Joint Motion for 25 Attorney’s Fees, asking that the Court award Plaintiff attorney fees and expenses in the 26 amount of $6,072. (Doc. No. 23 at 2.) The parties provide that this amount represents 27 compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel in connection 28 with this action. (Id.) 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 “Under EAJA, a litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if: (1) he is the 3 prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially 4 justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees 5 and costs are reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005); see also — 6 — 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1). The Court will address these elements in turn. 7 A. Prevailing Party 8 “A plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand” under 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g), even 9 when further administrative review is ordered, “is considered a prevailing party for 10 purposes of attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) 11 (citing Schalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292 , 297–98, 301–02 (1993)). Here, Plaintiff is the 12 prevailing party because the Court granted the Joint Motion for Judicial Review in 13 Plaintiff’s favor, reversed the decision of the Commissioner, and remanded the matter for 14 further administrative proceedings. (See Doc. Nos. 18; 19.) 15 B. Substantial Justification 16 It is the Commissioner’s burden to prove that his position, both in the underlying 17 administrative proceedings and in the subsequent litigation, was substantially justified 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013). 19 Here, the Commissioner makes no argument that his position was substantially justified. 20 Rather, the instant fee request comes to the Court by way of a joint motion. (See Doc. No. 21 23.) Accordingly, the Commissioner has not met his burden of showing his position was 22 substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 23 C. Reasonableness of Hours 24 “The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is 25 the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable 26 hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). “Many district courts have 27 noted that twenty to forty hours is the range most often requested and granted in social 28 security cases.” Costa v. Comm’r of SSA, 690 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 1 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 (“Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney 2 should recover a fully compensatory fee.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that 22.7 hours 3 in attorney time, and 5.5 hours in paralegal time, is reasonable in light of Plaintiff’s results 4 in the case.3 See Darren Jeffrey C. v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-01012-AHG, 2022 WL 5 17826795, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022) (finding 51.5 total hours requested reasonable 6 where the court granted the plaintiff’s merits brief, reversed the decisions of the 7 Commissioner, and remanded the matter for further proceedings). 8 D. Reasonableness of Hourly Rate 9 The EAJA provides that the court may award reasonable attorney fees “based upon 10 prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished,” but that 11 “attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines 12 that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of 13 qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2412(d)(2)(A). In this Circuit, factoring in increases in the cost of living, the statutory 15 maximum EAJA rate for work performed in 2023 is $244.62 and 2024 is $251.84. See 16 UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, Statutory Maximum Rates Under the 17 Equal Access to Justice Act, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum18 rates/ (last visited Aug. 18, 2025). 19 Here, Counsel’s hourly rates are in line with the Ninth Circuit’s EAJA hourly rate. 20 (See Doc. Nos. 20, 23.) Plaintiff initially requested $6,391.99 in attorney’s fees and costs, 21 representing 22.7 hours in attorney time billed at the maximum EAJA rates for 2023 and 22 2024, and 5.5 hours of paralegal time billed at $125.00 per hour. (Doc. No. 20-2 ¶¶ 5–9, 23 Exhs. A–H.) See Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 590 (2008) (“[A] 24 prevailing party that satisfies EAJA’s other requirements may recover its paralegal fees — 25 — — 26 — 3 Although the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees (Doc. No. 20), the Court 27 relies on the declaration and exhibits filed in support of that motion for the analysis related to the instant Joint Motion for Attorney’s Fees. (See Doc. No. 20-2, Declaration of Stuart T. Barasch; Doc. Nos. 20-3– — 28 — 1 from the Government at prevailing market rates.”) Plaintiff seeks paralegal fees at a rate 2 of $125 per hour. (Doc. No. 20-2 ¶ 6.) Courts in this District have routinely approved 3 hourly paralegal rates greater than Plaintiff’s requested amount. Rosemary G. V. v. Saul, 4 No. 3:19-CV-00715-RBM, 2020 WL 6703123 , at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2020) (“[C]ourts 5 within this District have approved the $130 hourly paralegal rate.”); see, e.g., Toni Lynn 6 B. v. Saul, No. 19-cv-925-AHG, 2020 WL 4001981 , at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2020) 7 (approving paralegal’s hourly rate of $130 for EAJA award, for work performed in 2019 8 and 2020); Black v. Berryhill, 18-cv-1673-JM-LL, 2019 WL 2436393 , at *1 (S.D. Cal. 9 June 11, 2019) (approving paralegal’s hourly rate of $130 for EAJA award); Smith v. 10 Berryhill, 17-cv-2108-CAB-RNB, 2019 WL 2234068 , at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) 11 (approving paralegal’s hourly rate of $130 for EAJA award). In light of the foregoing, the 12 Court finds the $125 hourly rate billed by the paralegals is reasonable. 13 Additionally, in the parties’ Joint Motion, the overall amount Plaintiff seeks to 14 recover has been discounted to $6,072. (Doc. No. 23.) Because Counsel is seeking less 15 than the EAJA maximum rate, the Court finds that the hourly rate billed is reasonable. See 16 Roland S. v. Saul, No. 3:20-cv-01068-AHG, 2021 WL 4081567 , at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 17 2021) (finding hourly rates consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s EAJA rates to be 18 reasonable). 19 E. Assignment of Rights to Counsel 20 The parties jointly request that “[f]ees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the 21 Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the 22 government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses and costs to be made directly to 23 [Plaintiff’s counsel], pursuant to the assignment executed by Plaintiff.” (Doc. No. 23 at 24 2.) “[A] § 2412(d) fees award is payable to the litigant and is therefore subject to a 25 Government offset to satisfy a pre-existing debt that the litigant owes the United States.” 26 Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). However, this “does not prevent payment of a 27 fee award directly to the attorney where there has been a valid assignment and the plaintiff 28 does not owe a debt to the government.” Ulugalu v. Berryhill, No. 3:17-cv-01087-GPC1 || JLB, 2018 WL 2012330 , at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018). Here, Plaintiff assigned his EAJA 2 ||fees to his attorney, Olinsky Law Group. (Doc. No. 20-6 at 2, Exh. D.) Therefore, if 3 || Plaintiff has no federal debt that is subject to offset, the award of fees may be paid directly 4 ||to the Olinsky Law Group pursuant to the assignment agreement and the parties’ Joint 5 || Motion. 6 CONCLUSION 7 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ Joint Motion and 8 || AWARDS Plaintiff $6,072.00 in attorney’s fees under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d), 9 no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , subject to the terms of the Joint Motion. (Doc. 10 || No. 23.) The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney’s Fees. (Doc. 11 || No. 20.) 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 20, 2025 © ¢ 14 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 15 United States District Judge — 16 — — 17 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —