Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02536/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02536-1/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 (DIWC)

---

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

 Defendant also asserts that if Plaintiff’s motion is granted, fees and costs would be

awarded to Plaintiff not to Plaintiff’s counsel (Doc. 28), an assertion that is not in dispute

(Doc. 29).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michelle D. Butler, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-2536-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff requests costs and attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act

(“EAJA”). Doc. 27. Defendant opposes on grounds that the government’s position was

substantially justified.1

 Doc. 28. The motion has been fully briefed and the parties have not

requested oral argument. Docs. 27-29.

The EAJA entitles a prevailing party to fees and other expenses “unless the court finds

that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).

A position is substantially justified if it has a reasonable basis in law and fact. Pierce v.

Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988); accord Flores v. Shalala, 49 F.3d 562, 569 (9th Cir.

1995). The burden of persuasion is on the non-prevailing party. Flores, 49 F.3d at 569.

In reversing Defendant’s denial and remanding for an award of benefits, this Court

Case 2:09-cv-02536-DGC Document 30 Filed 03/17/11 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 -

held that Defendant’s decision was “rife with error and unsupported conclusions,” and

further held that “it is clear that the ALJ would be required to find Plaintiff disabled.”

Doc. 24 at 2, 8. In light of this holding, the Court concludes that Defendant’s position was

not substantially justified. 

Because Defendant does not challenge the requested amount and the Court does not

find it unreasonable, the Court will award the full amount requested by Plaintiff in its motion

and reply.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for costs and attorney fees (Doc. 27) is granted.

2. Plaintiff is awarded $5,924.09 in attorneys’ fees and $350 in costs, for a total

of $6,274.09.

DATED this 17th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02536-DGC Document 30 Filed 03/17/11 Page 2 of 2