Coombs v. Colvin

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING 19 EAJA FEES AND COSTS signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida.(AE)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
MARY A. COOMBS,
8
9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C16-5878-BAT
ORDER GRANTING EAJA
FEES AND COSTS

v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

13

Mary A. Coombs, moves for EAJA fees and expenses of $8,239.33. Dkt. 19. The

14

Commissioner argues her position is substantially justified and no fees should be awarded. Dkt.

15

20. The Court rejects this arguments and GRANTS plaintiff’s motion.

16

Substantial justification requires the government to demonstrate its position had a

17

reasonable basis in both law and fact at each stage of the proceedings, including both the

18

government’s litigation position, and the underlying agency action giving rise to the civil action.

19

Tobeler v. Colvin, 749 F.3d 830, 832–34 (9th Cir. 2014). Deviating from this standard, the

20

Commissioner argues the issue is “whether the Commissioner was substantially justified in

21

defending the errors identified by the Court.” Dkt. 20 at 2. But the “position of the United States”

22

includes both the government’s litigation position and the underlying agency action giving rise to

23

the civil action. Meier v. Colvin, 727 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2014). Thus the Court first

ORDER GRANTING EAJA FEES 3

1

considers the underlying agency action to determine whether the government’s position is

2

substantially justified. Id. at 872. A court need not address whether the government’s subsequent

3

litigation position is justified when the underlying agency position was not substantially justified.

4

Id. at 872–73. Here the Commissioner reargues her position, a position the Court already rejected

5

in reversing the ALJ’s decision, and which the Court rejects as establishing substantial

6

justification. To the extent the Commissioner raises new arguments, they cannot be relied upon

7

to substantially justify a prior position.

8

Accordingly the Court GRANTS Ms. Coombs’ motion, Dkt. 19, and ORDERS

9

1.

Plaintiff is awarded EAJA fees and expenses in the sum of $8,329.33. The Court

10

has reviewed the pleadings and finds the fee requested is reasonable. Subject to offsets allowed

11

under the Treasury Offset Program, under Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S. Ct. 2521 (2010), payment of

12

the award shall be sent to Plaintiff’s attorney Eitan Kassel Yanich at his address: Eitan Kassel

13

Yanich, PLLC, 203 Fourth Avenue E., Suite 321, Olympia, WA. 98501.

14

2.

The Commissioner shall consider Plaintiff’s assignment of EAJA fees and

15

expenses to her attorney. Under Ratliff, the assignment depends on whether the EAJA award is

16

subject to offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset Program. The Commissioner will contact the

17

Department of Treasury to determine whether the EAJA award is subject to any offset. If not, the
EAJA award shall paid directly to plaintiff’s attorney Eitan Kassel Yanich, either by direct

18
deposit or by check payable to him and mailed to his address.
19

DATED this 30th of October, 2017.

20
21

A

22

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

23

ORDER GRANTING EAJA FEES 3