Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01919/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01919-1/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

 The attorney’s fees incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel are calculated as follows: 3.8

hours at $172.85/hour for work performed in 2008, 35.8 hours at $174.24/hour for work

performed in 2009, and 35.45 hours at $174.64/hour for work performed in 2010.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diana Decker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1919-PHX-JAT

ORDER

As an initial matter, pursuant to the mandate of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

(Doc. # 36), this Court’s Order, dated February 2, 2010, is vacated (Doc. # 27). Accordingly,

the denial of social security benefits is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the “Commissioner”) for additional

administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

Also pending before this Court is Plaintiff Diana L. Decker’s Application for Attorney

Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act. (Doc. # 33.) Plaintiff petitions this Court for

an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $13,014.001

, and costs in the amount of $805.00.

Case 2:08-cv-01919-JAT Document 38 Filed 03/02/11 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

 In fact, the rates charged by Plaintiff’s counsel in 2008, 2009 and 2010 equal the

Ninth Circuit’s statutory maximum hourly rates under the EAJA, adjusted for increases in

the cost of living. See “Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act,”

available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039 (last visited

Feb. 28, 2011).

- 2 -

In Appellee’s Unopposed Motion for Full Remand filed with the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, the Commissioner agreed that “[i]n the event that Plaintiff/Appellant files a

motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412

[(“EAJA”)], the Commissioner agrees that he will not argue that his position was

substantially justified.” Decker v. Astrue, No. 10-15493 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2010) (Doc. # 17).

The EAJA provides that “a court may award reasonable fees and expenses of

attorneys, in addition to the costs which may be awarded pursuant to subsection (a) [of the

EAJA], to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States or

any agency.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b). This Court shall award attorney’s fees and costs to a

prevailing party, “unless the court finds that the position of the United States was

substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. §

2412(d)(1)(A); see Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 793 (9th Cir. 2002). As noted

above, the Commissioner does not argue that his position was substantially justified. Nor

does the Commissioner argue that there are special circumstances that make an award of fees

and costs under the EAJA unjust. Further, the Commissioner does not dispute the amount

of fees and costs incurred.2

Considering the document hours and results obtained by Plaintiff’s counsel, this Court

finds there was adequate documentation, and no duplicative efforts, excessive time spent,

dilatory conduct, or disproportionate fees. Accordingly, this Court finds that an EAJA fee

award of $13,819.00 is reasonable, as required under the EAJA. Moreover, given the fact

that this case has spanned multiple levels of appeals over the course of three years, this Court

not consider the claimed hours unreasonable.

Case 2:08-cv-01919-JAT Document 38 Filed 03/02/11 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 -

The Commissioner, however, argues that pursuant to recent Supreme Court precedent,

this Court may only award fees to a litigant, not to her attorney, under the EAJA. See Astrue

v. Ratliff, __ U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 2521, 2524 (2010). The Commissioner argues that

“[a]lthough Plaintiff has submitted documentation indicating that she assigned her right to

an EAJA award to her attorney, this Court should not award EAJA fees directly to counsel.”

(Doc. # 34 at p. 2.) Plaintiff does not quarrel with the Commissioner’s position: “Plaintiff’s

Counsel affirmatively acknowledges that the EAJA belongs to Plaintiff and proposes EAJA

approval language stating that the fee is payable to Plaintiff.” (Doc. # 35 at pp. 1–2.)

Therefore, this Court directs the fees and costs be paid directly to Plaintiff, and disbursed by

the Commissioner in accordance with Government guidelines.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner of Social

Security for further administrative proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney Fees under

the Equal Access to Justice Act (Doc. # 33) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is awarded

attorney’s fees totaling $13,014.00.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded $805.00 in costs pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2412(a)(1), to be paid out of the Judgment Fund, as administered by the United

States Department of Justice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the EAJA attorney’s fees and costs award of

$13,819.00 shall be made payable to Plaintiff.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2011.

Case 2:08-cv-01919-JAT Document 38 Filed 03/02/11 Page 3 of 3