Dahl v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER: Granting Motion for Attorney Fees 32 . Signed on 12/02/2015 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

KENNETH DOUGLAS DAHL,

Civ. No. 3:14-cv-00904-CL

Plaintiff,

ORDER
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Kenneth Douglas Dahl ("Plaintiff') moves the Court for an award of $5,596.32
in attorney's fees under the Equal Access Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant
Social Security Administration Commissioner ("Defendant") has not filed opposition. Having
independently reviewed Plaintiff's fee request, the Court GRANTS his motion.

BACKGROUND
On June 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (# 1) to obtain judicial review of Defendant's
final decision denying his application for Social Security disability benefit.s. On September 30,

Page 1 -ORDER

2015, this Court remanded (#29) Plaintiffs case for further proceedings. On November 10, 2015,
Plaintiff filed his unopposed motion for EAJA fees (#32).

LEGAL STANDARD
A prevailing party in an action against the United States is entitled to an award of
attorney's fees and costs under the EAJ A unless the government demonstrates that its position in
the litigation was "substantially justified" or that "special circumstances make an award unjust."
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(l)(A). An EAJA fee award must be reasonable. Sorenson v. Alink, 239 F.3d
1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). In determining whether a fee is reasonable, the Court considers the
hours expended, the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged, and the results obtained. Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Atkins v. Apfel, 154 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 1998)

(applying Hensley to cases involving the EAJA). If the requested fees are not shown to be
reasonable, then the Court may reduce the award. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433; Atkins, 154 F.3d
at 988.

DISCUSSION
It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a prevailing party. Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255,

1257 (9th Cir. 2001) ("An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for the
purposes of the EAJ A if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of
whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded."). The Commission has not demonstrated that
its position in denying Plaintiffs application was "substantially justified" or that special
circumstances render the requested award unjust. Having reviewed the unopposed motion, the
Court finds Plaintiffs petition is proper and the amount requested is reasonable. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs application (#32) for $5,596.32 in EAJA fees is GRANTED.

Page 2- ORDER

Plaintiff assigned any EAJA fees to his attorney. Pl.'s Mot, Ex. B. Therefore, the amount
of this award shall be paid to Plaintiffs attorney upon verification that Plaintiff has no debt,
which qualifies for offset against the award, pursuant to the Treasury Offset Program. See Astrue
v. Ratliff 560 U.S. 586, 589 (2010). If Plaintiff has no such debt, then a check shall be made out

to Plaintiffs attorney, and mailed to Plaintiffs attorney. If Plaintiff has a debt, then a check for
the remaining funds, after any offset of the debt, shall be made to Plaintiff and mailed to
Plaintiffs attorney. Plaintiffs attorney's mailing address is as follows:
1336 E. Burnside St., Suite 130
Portland, Oregon 97132

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3- ORDER