Harrell v. Colvin

Filing 35

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 32 Motion for Attorney Fees. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HUGH J. HARRELL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

v.

Case No. 16-cv-02428-MEJ
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 32

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant.
On April 25, 2017, the undersigned granted in part Plaintiff Hugh Harrell’s Motion for

13

Summary Judgment, reversed the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, and

14

remanded this action for further administrative proceedings. See Order, Dkt. No. 29. The

15

undersigned found the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) failed to provide legally sufficient

16

reasons for rejecting certain limitations Dr. Barnes had found, and in failing to include those

17

limitations in his final residual functional capacity or in his hypothetical to the vocational expert.

18

Id. at 10-11. The undersigned found the ALJ did not err in finding Plaintiff not fully credible or in

19

finding transferability of job skills was not material. Id. at 12-17.

20

When the parties were unable to stipulate to Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees pursuant to the

21

Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. See

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Mot., Dkt. No. 32. The United States filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 33), and Plaintiff filed a Reply
(Dkt. No. 34). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the
Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and hereby VACATES the
August 17, 2017 hearing.
As is relevant here, the Court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees under the EAJA to a
prevailing party unless it finds the position of the United States was “substantially justified” or
“special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Court also may,

1

in its discretion, reduce the amount of fees requested or deny the award “to the extent that the

2

prevailing party . . . engaged in conduct which unduly and unreasonably protracted the final

3

resolution of the matter.” Id. § (d)(1)(C).

4

Plaintiff initially requested an award of $8,370, representing 41.60 hours of attorney time

5

at a rate of $192.68 per hour and 3.35 hours of paralegal time at a rate of $106 per hour. See Mot.

6

at 6-7. Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by his attorney’s Itemization of Services Rendered. See id.,

7

Ex. C, Dkt. No. 32-3. The Itemization is reasonable on its face, showing Plaintiff’s attorney spent

8

9.1 hours reviewing the voluminous record; less than 20 hours drafting the motion for summary

9

judgment and statement of administrative record; and just over 10 hours reviewing the United

10

States’ cross-motion and preparing a response thereto. Id.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The United States does not argue the Commissioner’s position was substantially justified

12

or that special circumstances make an award unjust; it does not argue Plaintiff’s requested hourly

13

rate is unreasonable. The United States opposes the request on only one ground: the amount of

14

fees requested is unreasonable because Plaintiff prevailed on only one of the three issues he raised

15

in his Motion for Summary Judgment. See Opp’n at 2-3. The United States accordingly asks the

16

Court to reduce the fees by five hours of time expended, or $964. Id. at 4 (arguing Plaintiff should

17

receive $7,406 in EAJA fees). The United States also argues that when Plaintiff submits the reply

18

brief in support of this Motion, “he must demonstrate that the time spent preparing the brief was

19

reasonable.” Id. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a supplemental declaration stating he spent a total

20

of 6.2 hours reviewing the United States’ opposition to the fee petition, researching relevant case

21

law, and drafting the reply and supplemental declaration. See Suppl. Sackett Decl., Dkt. No. 34-1.

22

The undersigned previously has rejected the United States’ position that EAJA fees should

23
24
25
26
27
28

be reduced because the Court only accepted some of Plaintiff’s arguments:
Both of Plaintiff’s arguments in her summary judgment motion went
to support one claim for relief, i.e., a claim for disability benefits on
which she prevailed by obtaining a reversal of the ALJ’s decision
and a remand for further proceedings. See Trefcer v. Colvin, 2013
WL 6623823, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013) (“Social Security
appeals are akin to a single claim for relief based on one set of facts
and involving related legal theories”); Williams v. Astrue, 2012 WL
3527224, at *3-4 (D. Or. June 26, 2012) (awarding fees where
plaintiff presented multiple arguments, not all of which were
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

successful, but were all in support of one claim for relief: a claim for
disability benefits through reversal and remand), report and
recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3527207 (D. Or. Aug. 15,
2012). Because Plaintiff’s claim for relief involved a common core
of facts and was based on related legal theories, “‘[m]uch of
counsel’s time will be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole.
. . . Such a lawsuit cannot be viewed as a series of discrete claims.’”
Sorenson[ v. Mink], 239 F.3d [1140,] 1147 [(9th Cir. 2001)]
(quoting Hensley[ v. Eckerhart], 461 U.S. [424,] 435 [(1983)]).
In considering the second-prong of the analysis, the Court looks at
the overall result obtained by the Plaintiff. Specifically, courts must
consider “whether ‘the plaintiff achieve[d] a level of success that
makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for
making a fee award.’” Id. at 1147 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at
434). “Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney
should recover a fully compensatory fee.” Id. (quotation omitted).
“A plaintiff may obtain excellent results without receiving all the
relief requested.” Id. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n.11). Here,
although Plaintiff presented two arguments, the Court was
persuaded by the first argument to remand in her favor. The Court’s
decision to not reach the second argument of Plaintiff s argument
does not support a reduction of fees. See Hensley, 461 U.S. 424,
434 (“Litigants in good faith may raise alternative legal grounds for
a desired outcome, and the court’s rejection of or failure to reach
certain grounds is not sufficient reason for reducing a fee.”
(emphasis added)); Stevenson v. Astrue, 2012 WL 5412704, at *7
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2012) (where plaintiff argued several reasons
against the denial of Social Security benefits, and “the court agreed
with him with respect to one of these reasons and remanded the
action for further proceedings . . ., the court will not reduce the
claimed hours.”). Given that [counsel] achieved the relief sought for
Plaintiff, she obtained an excellent result, and the fee award should
not be reduced because Plaintiff did not succeed on all the
contentions raised.

19

Lauser v. Colvin, 2015 WL 1884330, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2015). As in Lauser, the Court

20

here reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings,

21

Plaintiff prevailed, and obtained “excellent results” even if he did not succeed on all the arguments

22

raised. The Court finds no reason to reach a different conclusion in this case.

23

Separately, the Court finds that United States’ request to reduce the EAJA fees by five

24

hours is arbitrary. The United States offers no support for its calculations that this amount

25

corresponds to the work Plaintiff’s counsel expended on the rejected arguments.

26

The Court finds an award of $9,584.89 (representing the original amount requested, which

27

included 41.6 hours of attorney time at a rate of $192.68 per hour and 3.35 hours of paralegal time

28

at a rate of $106 per hour, as well as the supplemental 6.2 hours of attorney time expended in
3

1

connection with the reply), is reasonable. The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.

2

Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the United States shall tender payment for

3

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $9,584.89 to Harvey P. Sackett, as Plaintiff’s assignee. Because

4

Plaintiff has assigned all fee awards to his attorney (see Mot., Ex. B (Attorney’s Fee Contract)),

5

the United States shall tender payment directly to Mr. Sackett, subject to any administrative offset

6

due to Plaintiff’s outstanding federal debt, if any exists.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: August 9, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4