Frazier v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 5/26/21 GRANTING 38 Defendant's unopposed motion for clarification and GRANTING 40 Plaintiff's motion for correction of a clerical error. Plaintiff is AWARDED an additional $2,125.54, representing 20% of the difference between the amount sought in the initial motion ($16, 457.76) and the amount sought in the reply ($19,114.68). Plaintiff is AWARDED an additional $82.50 in costs. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KARRIE ANN FRAZIER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:13-CV-0756-TLN-DMC

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brought this action for judicial

18
19

review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

20

Final judgment remanding the matter was entered on September 26, 2014. Following entry of

21

judgment, the Court issued an order awarding $13,166.21 in fees and $235.05 is costs pursuant to

22

the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). See ECF No. 37. Pending before the Court are the

23

parties’ motions, ECF Nos. 38 and 40, for correction and clarification of the Court’s order

24

awarding fees and costs. Plaintiff seeks correction regarding the amount to be paid, which

25

Defendant opposes. See ECF Nos. 40 (motion) and 41 (opposition). Defendant seeks

26

clarification of the date by which payment was to have been made, which Plaintiff does not

27

oppose. See ECF Nos. 38 (motion) and 40 (Plaintiff’s motion and non-opposition to Defendant’s

28

motion).
1

1

The Court may grant reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)

2

and 60. Under Rule 60(a), the Court may grant reconsideration of final judgments and any order

3

based on clerical mistakes. Relief under this rule can be granted on the Court’s own motion and

4

at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

5

In the motion to clarify, Defendant seeks clarification under Rule 60(a) of the date

6

by which payment was to have been made. The Court directed payment of $13,166.21 in fees

7

and $253.05 in costs under the EAJA, “payable to plaintiff within 65 days of the date of this

8

order.” ECF No. 37, pg. 8. Good cause appearing therefor, Defendant’s unopposed motion for

9

clarification is granted. The Court hereby clarifies its prior order to reflect that initiation of the

10

payment process within the time period specified constitutes compliance with the Court’s order.

11

The Court also hereby clarifies that fees and costs may be paid directly to Plaintiff’s counsel if it

12

is determined that Plaintiff does not owe any federal debt which would constitute an offset. See

13

Kirk v. Berryhill, 244 F. Supp. 3d 1077, 1085 (E. Dist. Cal. 2017); see also Astrue v. Ratliff, 560

14

U.S. 586 (2010).

15

In the motion for correction of the prior order, Plaintiff contends that the Court

16

miscalculated the final payment amounts. See ECF No. 40. In her initial motion for EAJA fees

17

and costs, Plaintiff sought an award of $16,457.76 in fees and $253.05 in costs. See ECF No. 25.

18

The Court agreed with Defendant that the amount of fees sought was excessive and reduced the

19

fee award by 20%, ultimately awarding $13,166.21 in fees and the originally requested $253.05

20

in costs. See ECF No. 37. In the current motion, Plaintiff contends that the Court miscalculated

21

the reduced fee amount based on an incorrect base amount. See ECF No. 40. According to

22

Plaintiff, she initially requested $19,114.68 in fees, not $16,457.76. See id. While Plaintiff

23

sought the lower base fee amount in her initial EAJA fees motion, see ECF No. 25, Plaintiff states

24

that the additional amount accounts for time spent responding to Defendant’s opposition to her

25

initial EAJA fees motion, see ECF Nos. 31 and 40. Plaintiff also seeks additional costs associated

26

with the EAJA fees litigation in the amount of $82.50. See id.

27

///

28

///
2

1

As Plaintiff notes, a prevailing party is entitled to fees associated with subsequent

2

litigation over the award of fees and costs under the EAJA. See INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154

3

(1990). As Plaintiff also notes, the Court found no reason to discount the amount of costs

4

claimed. The Court only discounted the amount of fees claimed. In correcting a clerical error,

5

the Court will also do so with respect to the amount of additional fees requested associated with

6

the reply in support of Plaintiff’s initial EAJA motion. This reduction is made for the reasons

7

outlined in the Court’s initial order awarding EAJA fees and costs.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10

explained above;

11

2.

12
13

Defendant’s unopposed motion for clarification, ECF No. 38, is granted as

Plaintiff’s motion for correction of a clerical error, ECF No. 40, is granted

as explained above;
3.

Plaintiff is awarded an additional $2,125.54, representing 20% of the

14

difference between the amount sought in the initial motion ($16, 457.76) and the amount sought

15

in the reply ($19,114.68); and

16

4.

Plaintiff is awarded an additional $82.50 in costs.

17
18

Dated: May 26, 2021
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3