Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 44

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 32 Motion for Attorney Fees Under EAJA, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 3/30/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
ANNA MARIE PHILLIPS,
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13

THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

1:11-cv-1928-EPG
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES UNDER
EAJA
(Doc. 32)

14
Defendant.
15
16
17
18

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Commissioner of Social Security (“the

19

Commissioner”) challenging the denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits on

20

November 18, 2011. (Doc. 1.) On November 20, 2012, this Court issued an order and judgment

21

finding that the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision was supported by substantial

22

evidence and was based on proper legal standards. (Docs. 21 and 22.)

23

Plaintiff timely filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Ninth Circuit”)

24

on January 10, 2013. (Doc. 23). On August 18, 2015, the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum

25

vacating this Court’s judgment with instructions that the case be remanded to the Social Security

26

Administration for further consideration. (Docs. 27). A mandate was issued on October 14, 2015.

27

(Doc. 30). On October 16, 2015, this Court remanded the case to the Commissioner. (Doc. 31).

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

On November 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to
the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)) (“EAJA”) requesting payment in the
amount of $4,565.58, and $14.00 in costs in this Court.1 (Docs. 32 and 37.) Defendant opposes
the motion on the basis that the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified. (Doc. 36.)
Plaintiff also simultaneously filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees at the Ninth Circuit for
reimbursement for services rendered for the appeal. Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court
stayed the instant motion pending the resolution of the Motion for Attorney’s Fees at the Ninth
Circuit because the same issues were raised in each motion. (Docs. 39 and 40.) On March 10,
2016, the Ninth Circuit awarded $10,755.58 to Plaintiff for attorney’s fees and costs. This Court
lifted its stay on March 23, 2016. (Doc. 43.) Upon a review of the pleadings, Plaintiff’s motion is
GRANTED.

12

DISCUSSION

13

I.

14
15
16

Legal Standard
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), claimants who successfully challenge an agency

decision in a civil action are entitled to reasonable fees and expenses. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)
provides as follows:

17
Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to
a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in
addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a), incurred by that
party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort), including
proceedings for judicial review of agency action, brought by or against the
United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the
court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified
or that special circumstances make an award unjust.

18
19
20
21
22
23

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
Thus, when a claimant wins a remand based on an incorrect decision by the Commissioner,

24
25
26

attorneys’ fees are to be awarded unless the Commissioner shows that she was “substantially
justified” in her position, or that special circumstances make an award unjust. Meier v. Colvin,

27
1

28

This amount is for a total of 26.6 hours of work (3.2 hours for paralegal services and 23.4 hours for attorney
services) and includes fees for filing the instant motion, as well as the reply. (Doc. 37).

2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

727 F. 3d 867, 869-870 (9th Cir. 2013); see also, Lewis v. Barnhardt, 281 F. 3d 1081, 1083 (9th
Cir. 2002).
Under the EAJA, attorney’s fees paid must also be reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A);
Perez–Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 2002). The amount of the fee must be
determined based on the particular facts of the case. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429
(1983). In making this determination, courts should apply the “lodestar” method to determine
what constitutes reasonable attorney's fees. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. To calculate the lodestar
amount, the court multiplies “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation ... by a
reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The applicant bears the burden of
demonstrating the reasonableness of the fee request. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984).
II.

Analysis

Here, although the Defendant has argued that the Commissioner’s position was substantially
justified, the Ninth Circuit awarded attorney’s fees and costs to Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly,
this Court finds that the Commissioner’s position was not substantially justified. Additionally,
there are no special circumstances that makes this award unjust. Finally, the Court has reviewed
Plaintiff’s request and finds the amount for attorney’s fees and costs to be reasonable.
Plaintiff’s counsel requests that the fees be paid directly to the Law Office of Lawrence D.
Rohlfing pursuant to an assignment agreement. However, the Court agrees with the
Commissioner that any award under the EAJA must be made payable to Plaintiff because the
Treasury Offset Program requires that the government consider whether the fees are subject to
any government offset. Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010). If Plaintiff does not owe a
government debt that qualifies for the offset, then payment may be made in the name of
Plaintiff’s counsel based on the government’s discretionary waiver of the requirements in the
Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that :
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 32) be GRANTED. Plaintiff’s counsel is

28
3

1

awarded $4,579.58 ($4,565.58 in fees and $14.00 in costs);

2

2) This amount shall be payable to Plaintiff pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521,

3

and mailed to counsel’s office2 at the Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing, 12631

4

East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115, Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670; and

5

3) If the government determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt and waives the

6

requirements of the Anti-Assignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727, the fee award shall be

7

made payable to Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to Plaintiff’s assignment of her interest in

8

the fee award.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
Dated:

12

March 30, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

See Shreves v. Colvin, No. CV–11–8076–PCT (BSB), 2013 WL 4010993, at *5 (D. Ariz. Aug. 6, 2013) (“However,
the Court will direct the government to mail the attorney's fee award, made payable to Plaintiff, to the office of
Plaintiff's attorney.”)

27
28
4