Christensen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 29

ORDER granting 25 Motion for Attorney Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/18/17. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KARL E. CHRISTIANSEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:15-cv-02658-AC

v.

ORDER

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,

16

Defendant.

17
Plaintiff Karl E. Christiansen commenced this social security action on December 23,

18
19

2015. ECF Nos. 1-3.1 On March 9, 2017, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary

20

judgment, denied the Commissioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and remanded the

21

case for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and entered

22

judgment for plaintiff. ECF Nos. 23, 24. Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion

23

for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). ECF No. 25. The

24

Commissioner filed a response to plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 28. Plaintiff did not file a reply.

25

After considering the parties’ briefing and the applicable law, the court grants plaintiff’s motion

26
27
28

1

This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(15) and both
parties voluntarily consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF No. 11.
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

for EAJA fees.
The EAJA provides, in part, that:
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.
A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within
thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an
application for fees and other expenses which shows that the party
is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this
subsection, and the amount sought, including an itemized statement
from any attorney or expert witness representing or appearing in
behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at
which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also
allege that the position of the United States was not substantially
justified. Whether or not the position of the United States was
substantially justified shall be determined on the basis of the record
(including the record with respect to the action or failure to act by
the agency upon which the civil action is based) which is made in
the civil action for which fees and other expenses are sought.
The court, in its discretion may reduce the amount to be awarded
pursuant to this subsection, or deny an award, to the extent that the
prevailing party during the course of the proceedings engaged in
conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the final
resolution of the matter in controversy.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A)-(C).
Here, the Commissioner does not dispute that plaintiff is a prevailing party, because he

21

successfully obtained a remand for further proceedings under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. §

22

405(g). Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993). The Commissioner does not dispute

23

the amount of fees request; instead, the Commissioner only disputes plaintiff’s request that the

24

award be made directly to plaintiff’s attorney, rather than to plaintiff. ECF No. 28 at 1-2.

25

Therefore, the court will award plaintiff EAJA attorneys’ fees in the full amount of

26

$4,059.35. The Commissioner is correct that the EAJA award must be made by this court to

27

plaintiff, and not to counsel. See Astrue v. Ratliffe, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010). Nevertheless, if the

28

government determines that plaintiff does not owe a federal debt that qualifies for offset, payment
2

1

may be made in the name of plaintiff’s attorney.

2

Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the EAJA (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED.

4

2. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $4,059.35 pursuant to the

5

EAJA. If the government determines that plaintiff does not owe a federal debt that

6

qualifies for offset, payment may be made in the name of plaintiff’s attorney.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 18, 2017

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3