Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00614/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00614-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision (regarding payment of benefits)

---

1

17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC

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

AARON THEODORE NELSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Officially as 

Acting Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration,

Defendant.

Case No.: 17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S 

FEES TO PLAINTIFF

(Doc. No. 26)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Aaron Nelson’s motion for an award of 

attorney’s fees, cost, and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Doc. No. 22-1.) For the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court 

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially sought judicial review of an administrative decision denying 

Plaintiff’s application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) benefits under Title XVI 

of the Social Security Act and Social Security Disability Insurance (“SSDI”) benefits under 

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC

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

Title II of the Social Security Act. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 5, 2018, the Court entered 

judgment in favor of Plaintiff and remanded the case to the Commissioner under sentence 

four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Plaintiff timely filed this motion for an EAJA award in the total 

amount of $15,507.05, representing 78.80 hours of attorney’s services at the rate of 

$196.79. (Doc. No. 22-1 at 1, 6.) Plaintiff now seeks a total of $16,136.78 for an additional 

3.2 hours to draft their reply to the Commissioner’s opposition. (Doc. No. 25 at 2.)

II. DISCUSSION

The EAJA provides that a prevailing party will be awarded reasonable attorney fees 

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)(1)(A). The government has the burden of proving that its position was 

substantially justified. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988). 

The Commissioner does not contend that Plaintiff is not entitled to an award of fees 

under the EAJA. She argues, however, that Plaintiff’s claimed hours were unreasonable 

and excessive, and that Plaintiff should therefore be reimbursed a reduced amount of 

$10,547.94. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.)

A. Reasonableness of the Number of Hours Claimed

First, the Commissioner claims Plaintiff cannot recover fees for administrative or 

clerical tasks because the EAJA awards only attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 24 at 3.) 

Specifically, the Commissioner asserts that Plaintiff’s entries on 3/28/2017, 5/2/2017, 

6/16/2017, 7/10/2017, and 1/19/2018 for “form document preparation and filing and 

reviewing nonmerits documents” should be unrecoverable as overhead costs. (Id.)

However, attorneys’ tasks routinely include filing documents with the court. See 

Singmoungthong v. Astrue, No. 1:09CV1328 DLB, 2011 WL 2746711, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 

July 13, 2011) (permitting EAJA fees for “preparing service documents, serving 

Defendant, and filing the proof of service and consent form”). Additionally, minimal time 

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC

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

spent on litigation-related tasks may be reasonable in some circumstances. See Vessell v. 

Astrue, Case No. C08-0949-RSL, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97911, at *12 (W. D. Wash. Sept. 

18, 2009). Here, Plaintiff spent a minimal 1.1 hours over the course of one year drafting 

and filing documents with the court and checking on the case status. (Doc. No. 22-2, 

Exhibit B.) Thus, the district court fee request for 1.1 hours at the attorney’s rate of 

$196.79, totaling $216.47, will be allowed.

Next, the Commissioner asserts that Plaintiff’s billing of 34.1 hours on drafting a 

10-page reply to her cross motion for summary judgment is unreasonable. (Doc. No. 24 at 

4.) The Commissioner compares this to Plaintiff’s drafting of the MSJ, which totaled 26 

pages and was billed 30.6 hours. (Id.) Thus, the Commissioner contends, the Court should 

award no more than 10 hours for Plaintiff’s work—reducing the Plaintiff’s billing for 

drafting the reply by over 70 percent. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts his reply brief was not excessive 

because it did not duplicate the same issues or facts as the Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment, but rather responded directly to the Commissioner’s arguments. (Doc. No. 25 at 

3.) 

As a general matter, cases interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are applied “to determine 

what constitutes a reasonable fee award under the EAJA.” Costa v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Comm’r, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 

161 (1990)). A “reasonable attorney’s fee” is determined by the “lodestar” method, which 

multiplies “’the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . . by a reasonable 

hourly rate.’” Id. (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). Additionally, 

this Court’s “inquiry must be limited to determining whether the fees requested by this 

particular legal team are justified for the particular work performed and the results achieved 

in this particular case.” Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008).

The court should also “generally defer to the ‘winning lawyer’s professional judgment as 

to how much time he was required to spend on the case.’” Id. at 1112. Moreover, “the 

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC

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

district court can impose a small reduction [for duplicative work], no greater than 10 

percent—a ‘haircut’—based on its exercise of discretion and without more specific 

explanation.” Id.

Here, Plaintiff prevailed in their reply to the Commissioner’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment. Therefore, this Court must determine whether the Plaintiff’s request 

is justified for the work performed. Plaintiff’s reply brief indeed addressed the 

Commissioner’s arguments in her cross motion for summary judgment, surpassing mere 

repetition of its original MSJ. However, the Commissioner’s contention has some merit.

While the Plaintiff reasonably billed 30.6 hours for their 26-page MSJ, the Plaintiff now 

bills 34.1 hours for a 10-page reply. Thus, this Court will award Plaintiff their fee request 

for 30.6 hours, a 10 percent reduction from the requested 34.1 hours, totaling $6,021.77.

B. EAJA Fees Awarded Must Be Payable to Plaintiff

The Commissioner further contends that EAJA’s plain language directs the court to 

award attorney fees to the prevailing party, rather than his attorney. (Doc. No. 24 at 5.) 

Thus, should this Court award EAJA fees, Plaintiff’s counsel is not entitled to direct 

payment of EAJA fees. Plaintiff asserts that because Mr. Nelson signed an assignment of 

fees to counsel and believes he does not owe any debt to the United States Federal 

Government, Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to direct payment. (Doc. No. 25 at 3.) 

Under Astrue v. Ratliff, the EAJA’s plain language awards attorney’s fees directly 

to the prevailing party—the litigant. Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586, 597 (2010). However, 

the Government may directly pay the prevailing party’s attorney where the plaintiff both 

assigns payment of any award of fees and costs to the attorney and the plaintiff does not 

owe a debt to the federal government. Id.

Here, Mr. Nelson has signed an assignment of fees, directing payment to the Legal 

Aid Society of San Diego. (Doc. No. 25, Exhibit B.) Moreover, Mr. Nelson believes he 

does not owe any debt to the United States Federal Government. Id. Thus, without specific 

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC

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

evidence that neither of these requirements have been met by Plaintiff, the Commissioner 

must direct payment of any and all EAJA fees to the Legal Aid Society of San Diego.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s

fees and costs and hereby awards $15,447.99 to Plaintiff as attorney fees. (Doc. No. 26.)

Plaintiff must submit to Defendant detailed billing statements for all relevant periods 

within 15 days from the entry of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2019

Case 3:17-cv-00614-AJB-KSC Document 28 Filed 05/23/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5