Pratt v. Commissioner Social Security Administration

Filing 33

ORDER: Having reviewed the pending motion, the Court finds Plaintiff's request is proper and the amount requested is reasonable with one exception. Plaintiff requests $6,500. However, she provides support 32 for only $6,382. 50: 34.5 hours of work at a rate of $185. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application 30 for EAJA fees is GRANTED with a downward adjustment of $117.5. Plaintiff is awarded $6,382.50 in attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412..Signed on 12/21/2015 by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

CATHY PRATT,

Civ. No. 6:14-cv-01831-CL
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.

CLARKE, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs unopposed motion (#30) for an award
of$6,500 in attorney's fees under the Equal Access Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
BACKGROUND
On November 18,2014, Plaintiff filed a Complaint (#1) to obtain judicial review ofthe
final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration ("Commissioner")
denying her application for benefits. Pursuant to the stipulation of both parties, this Court

Page I -ORDER

remanded (#28) Plaintiff's case for further proceedings on September 24, 2015. On November
18,2015, Plaintiff's attorney filed her pending motion (#30) for EAJA fees.

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 EAJA 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. Mink, 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 EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of
whether disability benefits ultimately are awarded."). The Commissioner has not demonstrated
that its position in denying Plaintiff's application was "substantially justified" or that special
circumstances render the requested award unjust. Having reviewed the pending motion, the
Court finds Plaintiff's request is proper and the amount requested is reasonable with one
exception. Plaintiff requests $6,500. However, she provides support (#32) for only $6,382.50:
34.5 hours of work at a rate of $185. Accordingly, Plaintiff's application (#30) for EAJA fees is

Page 2- ORDER

GRANTED with a downward adjustment of $117.5. Plaintiff is awarded $6,382.50 in attorney's
fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
This award is subject to the Treasury Offset Program. See Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586,
589 (20 10). Any portion of the award not subject to offset should be made payable to Plaintiff
and mailed to Plaintiff's attorney.
It is so ORDERED and DATED this~-~

Page 3 -ORDER