(SS) Baker v. Commissioner of Social Security

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLIE BAKER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01238-CDB (SS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 13 v. PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND 28 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, U.S.C. § 1920 15 Defendant. (Doc. 16) 16 17 Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Carlie Baker (“Plaintiff”) for 18 the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 19 2412(d), in the amount of $6,500.00, and costs in the amount of $405.00 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, 20 to counsel for Plaintiff, Young Cho.1 (Doc. 16). 21 The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 22 payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a 23 federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be 24 made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Young Cho. Id. at 2. 25 On February 10, 2026, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to voluntary remand 26 pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. 14). Judgment was entered the same day. 27 (Doc. 15). On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees as a prevailing 1 party. (Doc. 16). See Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party 2 who prevails with a sentence-four remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). 3 Plaintiff’s filing is timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner 4 does not oppose the requested relief. (Doc. 16). 5 The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in civil 6 actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 U.S.C. § 7 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing party unless it 8 finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special circumstances make 9 such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position was substantially 10 justified and the Court finds there are no special circumstances that would make an award unjust. 11 See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 12 2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 13 Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 14 5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same). 15 Plaintiff requests an award of $6,500.00 in EAJA fees as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and 16 $405.00 in costs as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Doc. 16). The Ninth Circuit maintains a list 17 of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for increases in the cost of 18 living, on its website.2 See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-77 (9th Cir. 2005). Under 19 the applicable rate of $251.84, the requested award would amount to approximately 26 hours of 20 attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The Court finds this reasonable 21 and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need to have spent reviewing the 22 certified administrative record in this case (approximately 3,437 pages; Doc. 8) and preparing a 23 motion for summary judgment that includes 11 pages of argument (Doc. 11 at 3-13). With respect 24 to the results obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for 25 further proceedings. (Docs. 14, 15). 26 Under the EAJA, the Court also may award a judgment of costs to the prevailing party. 28 27 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920). Costs include, among other things, court filing fees, 1 | as requested by Plaintiffhere. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920 & (Doc. 16-2); Armstrong v. Astrue, No. CIV- 2 | S-07-1456-DAD, 2008 WL 2705023, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 9, 2008) (granting prevailing plaintiffs 3 | request for reimbursement of filing fee). 4 EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 5 | Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 6 | determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff's EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 7 | allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiffs counsel. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiffs stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA and costs pursuant to 10 28 US.C. § 1920 (Doc. 16) is GRANTED; and 11 2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 12 the amount of $6,500.00 and in costs in the amount of $405.00 pursuant to the terms set 13 forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 16). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if 14 the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then 15 the government shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to 16 Plaintiffs counsel, as set forth in the stipulation. 17 [T IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 10, 2026 | Wr bY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28