Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01938/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01938-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Carlos H. Moya, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-13-01938-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Plaintiff Carlos Moya’s Application for Attorney Fees Under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (Doc. 39), to which Defendant Carolyn Colvin has filed a Response 

(Doc. 41) and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Doc. 44). For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court grants in part and denies in part the application. 

 Plaintiff brought a Complaint in this Court for judicial review of the Social 

Security Administration’s determination to deny his claim for disability insurance and 

Supplemental Security Income benefits (Doc. 1). Defendant moved to remand the matter 

to the Appeals Council of SSA so that it could vacate the ALJ’s prior decision and 

instruct the ALJ to conduct a de novo hearing to consider additional issues, specifically 

including “whether Plaintiff’s condition as a whole medically equaled Listing 1.05(B), 

which addresses situations in which the amputation of one or both lower extremities is 

per se disabling.” (Doc. 23 p. 2.) Over Plaintiff’s objection, the Court remanded the 

matter for a de novo hearing and a new opinion from the ALJ. (Doc. 27.) Plaintiff 

appealed to the Ninth Circuit, asserting that this Court should have reversed and 

remanded to SSA with instruction to compute and immediately pay benefits, and seeking 

an order to this Court to do just that. 

Case 2:13-cv-01938-JJT Document 46 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 While the appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, the ALJ held a hearing at 

which he or she determined the evidence had shown Plaintiff’s impairments met the 

severity requirements for a finding of disability. Plaintiff thereafter withdrew his appeal 

and SSA began paying benefits based on the ALJ’s new finding. Plaintiff now seeks 

attorney’s fees under EAJA for both his action for review of the ALJ’s decision in this 

Court and for his appeal of this Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit. 

 Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to EAJA only where the action 

taken is successful. Plaintiff’s action before this Court was successful. His action 

resulted in a remand to the ALJ with instructions to consider Plaintiff’s disability claim 

de novo; that resulted in a decision awarding disability benefits to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is 

entitled to his attorney’s fees for all work done on that action, which includes all billing 

entries provided in Appendix B to Plaintiff’s fee application through October 21, 2014, 

when Plaintiff conferenced with counsel regarding whether to appeal this Court’s remand 

Order. The above-identified time includes 3.7 hours worked during 2013 at a rate of 

$187.02 per hour, and 36.7 hours worked in 2014 at a rate of $190.06 per hour, for a total 

of $7,667.17. The Court will also award the $400 Plaintiff seeks for filing fees, bringing 

the total award to $8,067.17. 

 Plaintiff’s action before the Ninth Circuit was not successful. He withdrew his 

appeal before it was decided. Plaintiff argues in his Reply that he is entitled to fees for 

pursuing the appeal because the appeal “was not ‘unsuccessful.’” (Reply at p. 2)(internal 

quotes in original). But of course, not being unsuccessful is not the standard. If that were 

the test, Plaintiff could have filed multiple appeals, regardless of merit, withdrawn them 

all before decision, and claimed all of the time spent on them under EAJA. The appeal 

must be successful to qualify for attorney’s fees pursuant to EAJA. 

 To avoid this result, Plaintiff attempts to rely on Nadarajah v. Holder, 569 F.3d 

906 (9th Cir 2009). That case is easily distinguished. In Nadarajah, the Plaintiff, 

unsatisfied with the district court’s inaction on an issue, sought a writ of mandamus from 

the circuit court to compel a specific action by the district court. The district court then 

Case 2:13-cv-01938-JJT Document 46 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

took that desired action before the circuit court acted on mandamus. Nonetheless, the 

plaintiff in Nadarajah was “successful” because, as the Ninth Circuit found, the thenpending mandamus action before it arguably could have influenced the district court to 

do the thing the plaintiff sought in bringing the mandamus. 

 In this case, the object of Plaintiff’s filing of the appeal in the Ninth Circuit was to 

force this Court to take a specific action—remand to SSA with an instruction to 

immediately compute and begin paying benefits. That is not what happened. This Court 

took no such action as a result of Plaintiff’s filing of the appeal. In fact, this Court took 

no action at all. Its previous Order stood, and the matter was remanded to the SSA to 

conduct a hearing de novo to consider additional evidence. It was the ALJ hearing, 

proceeding in the manner contemplated in this Court’s Order, that resulted in an award of 

disability benefits to Plaintiff, not Plaintiff’s appeal or any threat that might come from it. 

Plaintiff’s appeal thus was not “successful within the meaning of either EAJA or 

Nadarajah. He is not entitled to attorney’s fees for time his counsel spent pursuing it, 

which includes all time logged after October 21, 2014. 

IT IS ORDERED granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Application for 

Attorney’s Fees (Doc. 39). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED awarding $8,067.17 in attorney’s fees and costs to 

Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 payable to Plaintiff and sent to: 

Eric G. Slepian 

Slepian Law Office 

3737 N. 7th Street, Suite 106 

Phoenix, Arizona 85014 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:13-cv-01938-JJT Document 46 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Slepian, shall refund 

to Plaintiff the lesser of fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act and any fees 

awarded from past-due benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). 

 Dated this 26th day of April, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge

Case 2:13-cv-01938-JJT Document 46 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 4