(SS)Espinosa v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 22

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

ALBESSA ESPINOSA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY,
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

14
15
16

Case No. 1:22-cv-01586-HBK1
ORDER GRANTING AWARD AND
PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES UNDER
THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT
(Doc. No. 21)

Defendant.

17
Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated motion for award of attorney’s fees

18
19

filed on May 29, 2024. (Doc. No. 21). The parties agree to an award of attorney’s fees and

20

expenses to Plaintiff’s attorney, Jonathan O. Peña of Peña & Bromberg, PLC, in the amount of

21

$7,500.00 in attorney fees and expenses, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”),

22

28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Id.).
On February 28, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and

23
24

remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for

25

further administrative proceedings. (Doc. No. 19). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc.

26
1

27
28

Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§636(c)(1). (Doc. No. 10).

1

No. 20). Plaintiff now requests an award of fees as the prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)

2

& (d)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see 28 U.S.C. § 1920; cf. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S.

3

292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentence-four remand order under 42

4

U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The Commissioner does not oppose the requested relief.

5

The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in

6

civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28

7

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the Act, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party

8

unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances

9

make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was

10

substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would make an

11

award unjust.

12

Based on the stipulation, the Court finds an award of $7,500.00 in attorney fees and

13

expenses is appropriate. EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under

14

the Treasury Offset Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 532 U.S. 1192 (2010). If

15

the 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. The stipulated motion for attorney fees and expenses (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED.

20

2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party EAJA fees in

21

the amount of $7,500.00 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 and subject to the terms of the stipulated motion.

25
26

Dated:

June 3, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2