Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02382/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02382-6/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

 Although Katalin entitles this as a motion for fees and costs, she has not claimed any “costs” other than

attorney fees.

*E-FILED 2/6/07*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IRENE E. KATALIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

No. 05-02382 RS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY FEES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Irene Katalin brought this action seeking judicial review of a decision of the

Commissioner of Social Security. On October 5, 2006, this Court reversed the Commissioner's

final administrative decision and remanded the matter for further administrative proceedings on

terms requested by Katalin. Katalin now seeks an award of attorney fees and costs under the

Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C.§2412.1

 Upon consideration of the papers and the

record herein, the motion will be granted.

Case 5:05-cv-02382-RS Document 32 Filed 02/06/07 Page 1 of 4
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

The Commissioner argues that Katalin’s demand letter was actually a refusal to meet and confer because

the letter stated that the fee demand was “non-negotiable.” Katalin’s hard-line negotiation approach did not excuse

the Commissioner from at least responding to determine if compromise was possible.

II. DISCUSSION

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28, U.S.C. §2412(d)(1)(A), directs courts to award fees

and other expenses to private parties who prevail in litigation against the United States unless the

Government's position was substantially justified. In opposing this motion, the Commissioner

does not challenge that Katalin is the prevailing party or contend that the Commissioner's

position was substantially justified. Nor does the Commissioner point to any special

circumstances that would make a fee award unjust.

The only disputes here are whether Katalin satisfied the procedural requirements for

seeking fees and costs and whether the amount of fees Katalin requests is reasonable. The

Commissioner contends that Katalin's EAJA demand letter, dated October 13, 2006, was

insufficient to satisfy the “meet and confer” requirement under Civil Local Rule 54-6, which

provides “[c]ounsel for the respective parties must meet and confer for the purpose of resolving

all disputed issues relating to attorney fees before making a motion for award of attorney fees.” 

In response, Katalin argues that the demand letter represents a good faith effort to “meet and

confer” under Civil Local Rule 54-2. On its face, Civil Local Rule 54-2 relates to objections to

bills of costs, and is inapplicable here. Nevertheless, the principle that a party can satisfy a

“meet and confer” requirement through a good faith effort to initiate such discussion is sound. 

That said, in this case, a breakdown in the “meet and confer” process appears to have

resulted from the conduct of both parties.2

 While the absence of an actual “meet and confer”

session is an insufficient basis to deny Katalin's motion, counsel are encouraged to make greater

efforts to exhaust their “meet and confer” obligations in the future.

Katalin documented a total of 53.55 hours of service rendered by counsel, including the

time counsel spent litigating the request for fees. The Commissioner contends that this amount

of hours is unreasonable. The services counsel rendered Katalin include filing the complaint,

filing the motion and supporting brief for summary judgement, and eventually obtaining a

favorable result for Katalin. The 53.55 hours expended is reasonable in light of the amount of

Case 5:05-cv-02382-RS Document 32 Filed 02/06/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Katalin requests a somewhat higher total, however it is unclear how she calculated that figure.

services counsel performed. There was initial dispute between the parties over the calculation of

counsel's hourly rate. However, in Katalin's reply she accepts the Commissioner's calculation

that work performed in 2005 should be compensated at $165.71 per hour and work performed in

2006 should be compensated at $169.96 per hour. 

III. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion for award of attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is

granted on the following terms: the 6.3 hours of work done by counsel in 2005 is to be

compensated at $165.71 per hour ($1043.97), and the 47.25 hours of work in 2006 is to be

compensated at $169.96 per hour ($8030.61). Accordingly the resulting amount comes to

$9074.58,3

 and defendant is ordered to make that payment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

February 5, 2007

Case 5:05-cv-02382-RS Document 32 Filed 02/06/07 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER WAS ELECTRONICALLY

PROVIDED TO:

Mary Patricia Parnow mary.parnow@ssa.gov

Harvey Peter Sackett hps@hpspc.com, lucyc@sackettlaw.com; julie@sackettlaw.com;

juanita@sackettlaw.com

Sara Winslow sara.winslow@usdoj.gov, kathy.terry@usdoj.gov; claire.muller@usdoj.gov

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Dated: February 6, 2007

 /s/ BAK 

Chambers of Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg

Case 5:05-cv-02382-RS Document 32 Filed 02/06/07 Page 4 of 4