(SS)Alvarado v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
28
ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 6/3/2024. (Apodaca, P)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ELISEO ALVARADO,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
14
15
16
Case No. 1:22-cv-01198-HBK
ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND
PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER
THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT1
(Doc. No. 25)
Defendant.
17
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees filed on May 8, 2024.
18
19
(Doc. No. 25). Plaintiff requests an award attorney’s fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney,
20
Jonathan O. Peña of Peña & Bromberg, PLC, in the amount of $7,547.32 in attorney fees and
21
expenses, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.).
On February 8, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
22
23
remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for
24
further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 23). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc.
25
No. 24). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)
26
& (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.
27
1
28
Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 22).
1
292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42
2
U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner filed no opposition to the requested
3
relief, and the deadline for doing so has passed. (See docket).
4
The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in
5
civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28
6
U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party
7
unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances
8
make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was
9
substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an
10
award unjust.
11
Plaintiff requests an award of $7,547.32 in EAJA fees for 31.2 hours of attorney time.
12
(Doc. No. 25-1). The Court finds an award of $7,547.32 in attorney fees and expenses is
13
appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the
14
Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If the
15
Commissioner determines upon effectuation of this Order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not
16
subject to any offset allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted
17
to Plaintiff’s counsel.
18
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
19
1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 25) is GRANTED.
20
2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in
21
the amount of $7,547.32 in attorney fees and expenses. Unless the Department of Treasury
22
determines that Plaintiff owes a federal debt, the government shall make payment of the EAJA
23
fees to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jonathan O. Peña of Peña & Bromberg, PLC, in accordance with
24
Plaintiff’s assignment of fees.
25
26
Dated:
June 3, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?