Meadors v. Commissioner SSA

Filing 29

ORDER: Granting in Part Denying in Part Unopposed Application for Fees Pursuant to EAJA 26 . (SEE FORMAL ORDER). Signed on 4/24/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
KELLY MEADORS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civ. No. 6:13-cv-00536-MC
OPINION AND ORDER

CAROLYN COLVIN, Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Defendant.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Plaintiff filed this unopposed petition for attorney fees, ECF No. 26, in the amount of
$3,223.68 under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Defendant does
not oppose this petition. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff’s petition, ECF No. 26, is
GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.
Under the EAJA, this Court “shall award to a prevailing party other than the United
States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action . . . unless [this
Court] finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special
circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d
867, 870 (9th Cir. 2013). If attorney fees are appropriate, this Court must then determine whether
the amount of fees requested is reasonable. See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433
(1983).
Because the Government stipulates that plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees, this Court’s
inquiry is limited to the reasonableness of plaintiff’s petition. Under the EAJA, an award of
1 – OPINION AND ORDER

attorney fees is limited to $125.00 per hour “unless the court determines that an increase in the
cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorney for the
proceeding involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added); see
also Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876 (9th Cir. 2005) (“EAJA provides for an upward
adjustment . . . based on cost-of-living-expenses.” (citations omitted)). The cost of living
adjustment is determined by multiplying the base EAJA rate ($125.00) by the current Consumer
Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and then dividing the product by the CPI-U in the
month that the cap was imposed. Id. at 877; Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir.
2001).
Pursuant to these cost-of-living calculations,1 plaintiff is awarded fees at the hourly rates
of $186.88 for 17 hours 2 of work performed by counsel in 2013 and 2014. This Court declines to
award fees for tasks that are “purely clerical or secretarial.” Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491
U.S. 274, 288 n.10 (1989) (“[P]urely clerical or secretarial tasks should not be billed at a
paralegal rate, regardless of who performs them.”). As a result, this Court does not award for
time spent “Fil[ing] [the] EAJA fee petition.” Pl.’s Pet. for Att’y Fees 6, ECF No. 26 (indicating
that plaintiff’s counsel spent .25 hours filing this petition). Accordingly, plaintiff is awarded
attorney fees in the amount of $3,176.96.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

Plaintiff’s hourly rates are consistent with the “statutory maximum rates” under the EAJA. See, e.g., UNITED
STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, STATUTORY MAXIMUM RATES UNDER THE EQUAL
ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039 (last visited Apr.
14, 2014).
2
Plaintiff mistakenly listed her total hours as 15.75 instead of 17.25. Pl.’s Pet. for Att’y Fees 6, ECF No. 26.

2 – OPINION AND ORDER

DATED this 24th day of April, 2014.

______s/Michael J. McShane_______
Michael J. McShane
United States District Judge

3 – OPINION AND ORDER