Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02169/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02169-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Regina Stancil, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2169-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff brought this action to obtain judicial review of Defendant’s denial of social

security benefits. Dkt. #1. On September 25, 2007, the Court issued an order and judgment

reversing Defendant’s administrative decision and remanding the case for an award of

benefits. Dkt. ##26-27. The Court subsequently denied Defendant’s motion for relief from

judgment. Dkt. #31.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the Equal Access

to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Dkt. #32. Defendant has filed no opposition to

the motion and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 54.2(b)(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a).

Under the EAJA, the Court shall award attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing party

unless the United States shows that its position was “substantially justified or that special

circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Gutierrez v. Barnhart,

274 F.3d 1255, 1258 (9th Cir. 2001) (same); Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 567 (9th Cir.

1995) (“The EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to prevailing parties.”).

Case 2:06-cv-02169-DGC Document 34 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 2
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 -

Plaintiff is a prevailing party because this matter was remanded pursuant to sentence four of

the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). See Dkt. ##1, 33; see also Gutierrez, 274 F.3d

at 1257 (“An applicant for disability benefits becomes a prevailing party for purposes of the

EAJA if the denial of her benefits is reversed and remanded regardless of whether disability

benefits ultimately are awarded.”); Flores, 49 F.3d at 567 (“If the district court enters

judgment reversing and remanding under sentence four, then the claimant must apply for fees

within 30 days of the date the judgment becomes final.”). By not opposing Plaintiff’s

motion, Defendant has not carried his burden of showing that his position in this case was

substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award of fees and costs unjust.

Plaintiff is thus entitled to an award under the EAJA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A);

Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1257-58.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Stephanie Lake, has filed an affidavit and an itemized statement

of fees showing that she worked 29.5 hours on this case and that the fees and costs total

$4,895.36. Dkt. ##32-2, 32-3. The Court finds that the requested award is reasonable.

The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion and award her $4,895.36 in fees and costs.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs (Dkt. #32) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is awarded $4,895.36 in attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the

Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412.

3. Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs as

premature or, in the alternative, hold Plaintiff’s motion in abeyance (Dkt. #33)

is denied as moot.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02169-DGC Document 34 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 2