Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02900/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02900-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR PODGORNY,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant. /

No. C 03-2900 MEJ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES &

COSTS

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Before the Court is plaintiff Victor Podgorny's ("Plaintiff") Motion for Attorney's Fees, filed

January 5, 2007. (Doc. #39.) On June 23, 2003, Plaintiff brought an action for social security

disability benefits, contending that the Administrative Law Judge incorrectly denied his social

security benefits. On January 6, 2004, this Court remanded the case for reconsideration by the

Social Security Administration. Plaintiff now seeks $11,325.41 in attorney's fees and $724.99 in

costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act ("EAJA"). 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Upon review of the

parties' papers, legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an award of

$10,745.41 in attorney fees and $705.54 in costs.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Under the EAJA, the Court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing

party unless it finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. §

Case 3:03-cv-02900-MEJ Document 47 Filed 02/28/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 While not a social security matter, the Supreme Court noted that the standard in Hensley is "generally applicable

in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a prevailing party." Id. at 433 n.7. 

2

2412(d). In Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988), the United States Supreme Court

defined “substantially justified” as “justified in substance or in the main - that is, justified to a

degree that could satisfy a reasonable person.” This definition is “no different from the ‘reasonable

basis both in law and fact’ formulation adopted by the Ninth Circuit and the vast majority of other

Courts of Appeals that have addressed this issue.” Id. 

As Plaintiff received a remand, he is considered a prevailing party. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509

U.S. 292, 302 (1993) ("a sentence four remand . . . terminates the litigation with victory to the

plaintiff"). Further, defendant Jo Anne B. Barnhart ("Defendant") does not argue that Plaintiff is not

entitled to fees and costs; rather, Defendant argues that this Court should award Plaintiff a

substantially reduced amount of EAJA fees. Thus, the only question for the Court is whether the

amount claimed is reasonable. 

While there is no precise rule, the most useful starting point for determining a reasonable fee

is "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly

rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 487 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).1

 If the Court finds that the amount claimed

is excessive, even where the claims were interrelated, nonfrivolous, and raised in good faith, it may

cut specific hours, or reduce the award overall. Id. at 436-37. The burden is on Plaintiff to offer

adequate evidence of his efforts, and if his offering is inadequate, "the district court may reduce the

award accordingly." Id. at 433, 436.

The EAJA limits attorney fees to $125 per hour "unless the court determines that an increase

in the cost of living or other special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for

the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)A)(ii). Plaintiff's request

includes cost of living increases for attorney time as follows: 2003-04 = $153.32/hr.; 2005 =

$156.75/hr.; 2006-07 = $163.34/hr. Defendant does not object to these hourly rates. 

B. Application to the Case at Bar

Plaintiff seeks $11,321.41 in attorney's fees and $724.99 in costs, as detailed in the Second

Case 3:03-cv-02900-MEJ Document 47 Filed 02/28/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 In making these findings, the Court shall only re-itemize that portion of each date's hours spent on clerical tasks.

However, as Plaintiff provided no such itemization, the Court shall make reasonable determinations based upon the

description provided for each date.

3

Revised Declaration of Ian M. Sammis, filed February 20, 2007. (Doc. #45.) Upon review of

Plaintiff's request, the Court finds his fee request reasonable. Although it is Plaintiff's burden to

offer adequate evidence of his efforts, Defendant does not point to any specific evidence in Mr.

Sammis' declaration that is unreasonable. Instead, Defendant generally argues that Plaintiff's request

is grossly excessive and inefficient. Defendant states that competent counsel should have been able

to handle this case in a total of 10.5 hours of attorney time and 54 hours of law clerk time, yet she

fails to provide any specific instance of unreasonable time. Given the procedural history of this

case, including a remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the requested amount is

reasonable.

However, the Court does take issue with the requested fees for Andrew Ragnes, the law clerk

of Plaintiff's counsel. In his declaration, Mr. Sammis requests fees at a rate for Mr. Ragnes of

$100.00 per hour for legal research, pleadings, and drafting; and $40.00 per hour for clerical tasks. 

Despite making this distinction, Mr. Sammis' declaration lists all Mr. Ragnes' work at the $100.00

rate. This is incorrect. Upon review of the evidence in Mr. Sammis' declaration, it is clear that at

least a portion of Mr. Ragnes' time was spent on clerical tasks. As Plaintiff does not provide a

breakdown of this work by hour, the Court finds that the following time should have been billed at

the clerical rate2

:

DATE WORK DONE HOURS

7/1/03 served all appropriate parties, e-filed proof of service, provided 

chambers copy to court .2

9/23/03 tab transcript of the administrative record .5

10/20/03 e-file and mail chambers copy to court and to client .2

11/4/03 e-file consent to proceed with a magistrate judge .2

12/2/03 e-file and provide chambers copy to court .2

1/20/04 e-file with court and mail chambers copy .2

8/23/04 certified mail to Appeals Council .2

10/28/04 call Appeals Council for status of appeal; e-file with court and mail

chambers copy .3

11/23/04 e-file with court and mail chambers copy; mail copy to client .2

3/16/05 personally file papers to meet statutory time by driving to court .4

Case 3:03-cv-02900-MEJ Document 47 Filed 02/28/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

4/29/05 call Ninth Circuit for permission; fax and mail to opposing counsel .2

5/12/05 take to Copy Express to have nine copies made and bound .3

5/16/05 take to Copy Express to have 19 copies made; pick up from Copy

Express; deliver to Ninth Circuit clerk's office and serve on opposing

counsel .5

6/28/05 Copy Express for copying; pick up from Copy Express; deliver to Ninth 

Circuit clerk's office & serve on opposing counsel .5

11/25/06 Do accounting of hours for Mr. Sammis and self; revise the declaration

to include time of Ninth Circuit pleading preparation and costs 5.5

Total Clerical Time: 9.6

Plaintiff claims $8,540.00 (85.4 hours at $100.00 per hour) for Mr. Ragnes' work on the case. 

As 9.6 hours were actually spent on clerical work, the correct amount is $384.00 for clerical work

(9.6 hours at $40.00 per hour) and $7,580.00 (75.8 hours at $100.00 per hour), for a total of

$7,964.00. Accordingly, the Court shall award fees in the amount of $10,745.41 ($2,781.41 for Mr.

Sammis' work and $7,964.00 for Mr. Ragnes' work). 

Plaintiff also seeks $319.99 in costs and $405.00 in filing fees. Defendant's only objection to

this request is that $19.41 in costs were incurred during the administrative process below and should

not be reimbursed. As Plaintiff does not address the $19.41 discrepancy in his reply, the Court shall

award $705.54.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an award of $10,745.41 in

attorney fees and $705.54 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-02900-MEJ Document 47 Filed 02/28/07 Page 4 of 4