Centera v. Saul
Filing
20
ORDER Re: Joint Stipulation for Attorneys' Fees [Doc. No. 19 ]. The Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action for purposes of attorneys' fees, the parties' joint motion is timely, and the stipulated amount of fees is reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties' joint motion for an attorneys' fees award of $6,000.00 pursuant to the EAJA. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 6/3/2021. (tcf)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RUSSELL C.,
Case No. 20-cv-256-MMA (RBM)
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION
FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
14
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of
Social Security,
[Doc. No. 19]
15
16
Defendant.
17
18
On February 11, 2020, Russell C. (“Plaintiff”) filed this social security appeal
19
challenging the denial of his application for disability benefits. See Doc. No. 1. The
20
Court referred all matters arising in this social security appeal to the assigned Magistrate
21
Judge for report and recommendation (“R&R”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
22
Civil Local Rule 72.1. See Doc. No. 7. On January 14, 2021, the Magistrate Judge
23
issued a R&R recommending that the Court (1) grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s
24
motion and (2) remand the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. See Doc. No. 14 at 17.
25
On March 24, 2021, the Court overruled the Commissioner’s objection, adopted the
26
Magistrate Judge’s R&R, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for
27
summary judgment, and remanded the matter to the Social Security Administration
28
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings
1
20-cv-256-MMA (RBM)
1
consistent with the Court’s order and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. See Doc. No. 17 at
2
12.1 Also on March 24, 2021, the Clerk of Court issued the judgment. See Doc. No. 18.
3
On May 26, 2021, the parties filed the instant stipulation2 that Plaintiff be awarded
4
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,000.00 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act
5
(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Doc. No. 19
6
at 1.
7
The EAJA allows a prevailing party to seek attorneys’ fees from the United States
8
within thirty days of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). “A sentence four remand
9
becomes a final judgment, for purposes of attorneys’ fees claims brought pursuant to the
10
EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), upon expiration of the time for appeal.” Akopyan v.
11
Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292,
12
297 (1993)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(G); Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89,
13
102 (1991) (“In sentence four cases, the filing period begins after the final judgment
14
. . . is entered by the court and the appeal period has run, so that the judgment is no longer
15
appealable.”). If one of the parties is the United States, either party may file a notice of
16
appeal within sixty days of the order appealed from. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). “A
17
plaintiff who obtains a sentence four remand is considered a prevailing party for purposes
18
of attorneys’ fees.” Akopyan, 296 F.3d at 854 (citing Shalala, 509 U.S. at 301–02).
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
26
27
1
Citations refer to the pagination assigned by the CM/ECF system.
28
2
The Court construes the parties’ stipulation as a joint motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.2.
2
20-cv-256-MMA (RBM)
1
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff is the prevailing party in this action for purposes
2
of attorneys’ fees, the parties’ joint motion is timely, and the stipulated amount of fees is
3
reasonable. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion for an attorneys’
4
fees award of $6,000.00 pursuant to the EAJA.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: June 3, 2021
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
20-cv-256-MMA (RBM)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?