Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01673/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01673-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1 

18cv1673 JM (LL) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHARLES BLACK, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, 

Defendant.

 Case No.: 18cv1673 JM (LL) 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTIONS FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

AND EXPENSES 

 The parties jointly move the court to award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and expenses 

pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. Nos. 22, 24.) For the reasons 

discussed below, the court grants the parties’ joint motions. 

BACKGROUND

On May 23, 2019, Plaintiff Charles Black and Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, jointly moved to award Plaintiff $3,000 in attorney’s 

fees and expenses under EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), and for no award of costs under 

28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Doc. No. 22.) On June 10, 2019, in response to the court’s order 

requesting supplemental briefing, the parties submitted an amended joint motion for 

attorney’s fees and expenses that included an itemized list stating the actual time expended 

and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. (Doc. No. 24.) 

/// 

Case 3:18-cv-01673-JM-LL Document 25 Filed 06/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

18cv1673 JM (LL) 

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

DISCUSSION 

 “Under EAJA, a litigant is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if: (1) he is the 

prevailing party; (2) the government fails to show that its position was substantially 

justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust; and (3) the requested fees and 

costs are reasonable.” Carbonell v. I.N.S., 429 F.3d 894, 898 (9th Cir. 2005). 

 Here, Plaintiff is the prevailing party as this case was remanded pursuant to sentence 

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor. Akopyan v. 

Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A plaintiff who obtains a sentence four 

remand is considered a prevailing party for purposes of attorneys’ fees.”). Second, in light 

of the joint nature of the parties’ request and the court’s prior order remanding this action, 

the government has not shown that its position was substantially justified. 

Lastly, the requested fees and costs are reasonable. The parties seek a fee award for 

2.7 hours billed by a paralegal, 14.1 hours billed by Plaintiff’s counsel, and $15.66 in costs 

for service of the summons and complaint. (Doc. No. 24-2 at 1.) The court finds the 

number of hours billed by the paralegal and Plaintiff’s counsel reasonable. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2412(d); Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 906, 918 (9th Cir. 2009) (a prevailing party may 

recover reasonable paralegal fees). The hourly rates billed by the paralegal and counsel 

are also reasonable. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) provides that the court may award 

reasonable attorney’s fees “based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and quality of 

the services furnished,” but “attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $125 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 attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher 

fee.” The paralegal bills at an hourly rate of $130 and counsel bills at an hourly rate of 

$201.60. (Id.) The parties’ amended joint motion fails to provide any reason or authority 

for fees above the statutory mandated amount of $125 per hour. However, the Ninth 

Circuit’s hourly EAJA rate for work performed in 2018, factoring in an increase in the cost 

of living, was $201.60. See United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, Statutory Maximum 

Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.

Case 3:18-cv-01673-JM-LL Document 25 Filed 06/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

18cv1673 JM (LL) 

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

php?pk_id=0000000039 (last visited June 11, 2019). Furthermore, the court may approve 

paralegal rates at prevailing market rates. Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d at 918; Krebs v. 

Berryhill, 16cv3096 JLS (BGS) (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2018) (approving paralegal hourly rate 

of $125 for EAJA award). Here, the parties reduce the lodestar amount of $3,193.56 to a 

request for $3,000. The court finds this amount reasonable. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, the parties’ joint motions (Doc. Nos. 22, 24) are granted and Plaintiff 

is awarded $3,000 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 11, 2019 JEFFREY T. MILLER 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:18-cv-01673-JM-LL Document 25 Filed 06/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3