Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00161/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00161-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00161-CDB (SS)

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR AWARD 

OF ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO THE 

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d) 

(Doc. 19)

Pending before the Court is the stipulated request of Plaintiff Kyle Young (“Plaintiff”) for 

the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 

2412(d), in the amount of $5,450.00 to counsel for Plaintiff, Francesco Benavides.

1

 (Doc. 19).

The parties agree that an award of attorney’s fees to counsel for Plaintiff should be made 

payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury determines that Plaintiff does not owe 

a federal debt, then the Commissioner shall cause the payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be 

made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, Francesco Benavides. Id. at 2.

On December 20, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 

and remanded the case pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner for 

1 Both parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a U.S. magistrate judge for all 

proceedings in this action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 11).

Case 1:22-cv-00161-CDB Document 20 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 3
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

further proceedings. (Doc. 17). Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 18). On January 10, 

2025, Plaintiff filed the pending stipulation for attorney fees as a prevailing party. (Doc. 19); see 

Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 300-02 (1993) (concluding that a party who wins a sentencefour remand order under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) is a prevailing party). The initial 60-day deadline 

for filing of appeals (Fed. R. App. P. 4) falls on February 18, 2025. As such, Plaintiff’s filing is 

timely. Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2007). The Commissioner does not oppose 

the requested relief. (Doc. 19). 

The EAJA provides for an award of attorney fees to private litigants who both prevail in 

civil actions (other than tort) against the United States and timely file a petition for fees. 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Under the EAJA, a court shall award attorney fees to the prevailing 

party unless it finds the government’s position was “substantially justified or that special 

circumstances make such an award unjust.” Id. Here, the government did not show its position 

was substantially justified and the Court finds there are not special circumstances that would

make an award unjust. Moreover, the government does not oppose Plaintiff’s stipulated request. 

See Sanchez v. Berryhill, No. 1:16-cv-01081-SKO, 2018 WL 509817, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 

2018) (finding position of the government was not substantially justified in view of the 

Commissioner’s assent to remand); Knyazhina v. Colvin, No. 2:12–cv–2726 DAD, 2014 WL 

5324302, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014) (same).

Plaintiff requests an award of $5,450.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 19). The Ninth Circuit 

maintains a list of the statutory maximum hourly rates authorized by the EAJA, adjusted for 

increases in the cost of living, on its website. See Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 870, 876-

77 (9th Cir. 2005). Even assuming Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the median of the published 

maximum rate associated with the years (2022 and 2023) during which he engaged in services in 

this case (which the Court computes as $239.78),2the requested award would amount to

approximately 22 hours of attorney time (not accounting for any paralegal time expended). The 

Court finds this reasonable and commensurate with the number of hours an attorney would need 

2

Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice, available at

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/attorneys/statutory-maximum-rates/ (last visited January 14, 

2025), archived at https://perma.cc/5P4T-9U4E.

Case 1:22-cv-00161-CDB Document 20 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 3
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

3

to have spent reviewing the certified administrative record in this case (364 pages; Doc. 13) and

preparing a 12-page opening brief and four-page reply brief in support of a motion for summary 

judgment that raises two issues for the Court’s review. (Doc. 14). With respect to the results 

obtained, Plaintiff’s counsel obtained a favorable judgment remanding the case for further 

proceedings. (Doc. 17 at 24).

EAJA fees, expenses, and costs are subject to any offsets allowed under the Treasury Offset 

Program (“TOP”), as discussed in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010). If the Commissioner 

determines upon effectuation of this order that Plaintiff’s EAJA fees are not subject to any offset 

allowed under the TOP, the fees shall be delivered or otherwise transmitted to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s stipulated request for attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA (Doc. 19) is 

GRANTED; and 

2. The Commissioner is directed to pay to Plaintiff as the prevailing party attorney’s fees in 

the amount of $5,450.00, pursuant to the terms set forth in the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 

19). Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the Department of the Treasury 

determines that Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 

payment of fees, expenses, and costs to be made directly to Plaintiff’s counsel, as set forth 

in the stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2025 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00161-CDB Document 20 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3