Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08222/USCOURTS-azd-3_19-cv-08222-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Teresa Lynn Walaszek,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant.

No. CV-19-08222-PCT-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed application for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 18.) 

“The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) instructs that this court ‘shall’ grant 

attorneys[’] fees to a prevailing plaintiff ‘unless’ the government meets its burden to 

demonstrate that both its litigation position and the agency decision on review were 

‘substantially justified.’” Campbell v. Astrue, 736 F.3d 867, 868 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(a)). Here, the government has chosen not to respond, and 

therefore the Court must grant attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., Robinson v. Berryhill, 2018 WL 

7140957, *2 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and the [EAJA], 24 

U.S.C. § 2412(d), attorney’s fees . . . and costs . . . are awarded.”); Wheatley v. Berryhill, 

2018 WL 6579351, *1 (9th Cir. 2018) (same).

Plaintiff’s attorney seeks to recover EAJA fees at the rate of $250 per hour. This 

is not permissible. Attorneys’ fees pursuant to the EAJA “shall not be awarded in excess 

of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a 

Case 3:19-cv-08222-DWL Document 21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings 

involved, justifies a higher fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). “Appropriate cost-of-living 

increases are calculated by multiplying the $125 statutory rate by the annual average 

consumer price index figure for all urban consumers (‘CPI–U’) for the years in which 

counsel's work was performed, and then dividing by the CPI–U figure for March 1996, 

the effective date of EAJA’s $125 statutory rate.” Thangaraja v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 

870, 876–77 (9th Cir. 2005). However, the Ninth Circuit has simplified this process by 

posting the statutory maximum rates from 2009 to the present on its website, available at 

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039. The statutory 

maximum rate for work performed in 2019 is $205.25. 

Plaintiff’s counsel billed 15.9 hours in 2019. (Doc. 19 at 3-4.) Thus, the 

maximum fees award permissible is $3,263.48 (the product of 15.9 hours x $205.25 per 

hour).

Thus, the Court will award $3,263.48 in attorneys’ fees and $427.20 in costs.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s unopposed application for an award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs (Doc. 18) is granted in part and Plaintiff is awarded $3,263.48 

in attorneys’ fees and $427.20 in costs.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the government determines that Plaintiff 

does not owe a debt subject to offset under the Treasury Offset Program, 31 U.SC. § 

3716(c), and the government agrees to waive the requirements of the AntiAssignment Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3727, the government shall pay the EAJA award to 

Plaintiff’s counsel. If there is a debt owed under the Treasury Offset Program, the 

remaining EAJA award after offset will be paid by a check made out to Plaintiff but 

delivered to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Dated this 20th day of February, 2020.

Case 3:19-cv-08222-DWL Document 21 Filed 02/20/20 Page 2 of 2