Dickey v. Colvin

Filing 38

ORDER ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES by Hon. William H. Orrick re 27 Motion for Attorney Fees. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

KYLE DICKEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLINE COLVIN,
Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-00629-WHO
ORDER ON MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 27

On November 19, 2014, I granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, denied the

13

government’s motion for summary judgment, and remanded for payment of benefits. Dkt. No. 24.

14

On February 10, 2015, I denied the government’s motion to alter or amend the judgment on the

15

issue of the remand for payment of benefits. Dkt. No. 35. Currently before me is plaintiff’s

16

motion for an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in an

17

amount of $9,014.55 for 47.5 hours at $189.78.hour. Dkt. No. 27. The government opposes the

18

motion, in part, arguing that the amount of fees requested is unreasonable and any fee award

19

should be paid to plaintiff, not plaintiff’s attorney.

20

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than

21

the United States fees and other expenses. . . unless the court finds that the position of the United

22

States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. §

23

2412(d). The fees requested and awarded must be reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); Costa v.

24

Comm’r of SSA, 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012).

25

The government does not argue that its position was substantially justified and does not

26

challenge the reasonableness of the requested hourly rate. Instead, the government challenges the

27

hours spent by counsel on three tasks and argues for a reduction of compensable time for those

28

tasks. The government contends that: (i) spending two hours to review the answer was

1

unreasonable, only 1.5 hours should be compensated; (ii) spending 26 hours to draft the motion for

2

summary judgment was unreasonable, only 16 hours should be compensated; and (iii) spending 17

3

hours reviewing the cross-motion and drafting the reply was unreasonable, only 10 hours should

4

be compensated. Oppo. at 4.

5

Considering the “case-specific factors including, among others, the complexity of the legal

6

issues, the procedural history, the size of the record,” Costa, 690 F.3d at 1136, I conclude that the

7

hours expended on this case by plaintiff’s counsel were reasonable and grant the request for

8

attorney’s fees in full. While the hours spent on a few of the challenged tasks may have been on

9

the high end, the record in this case was dense. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel has not sought fees
for the time spent in opposing the government’s motion to alter the judgment and to strike

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees. Viewing the record as a whole, 47.5 hours is not an

12

unreasonable time to have spent litigating this case.

13

With respect to whom the fees should be paid to – plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney –if

14

plaintiff does not owe a government debt that qualifies for an offset under the Department of

15

Treasury Offset Program, then payment should be made to plaintiff’s attorney pursuant to the

16

assignment signed by plaintiff in favor of his attorney. Declaration of Steven Bruce, Ex. B. If

17

plaintiff owes an offset, the remainder of the EAJA fees should be paid in accordance with the

18

assignment to plaintiff’s attorney.

19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 13, 2015
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2