Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04233/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-04233-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Deborah D. Castillo, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social

Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-4233-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff’s application for attorney fees pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (“EAJA”) (doc. 34), defendant’s response (doc. 42),

and plaintiff’s reply (doc. 43).

On March 20, 2007, we held that substantial evidence in the record supported the

ALJ’s decision that plaintiff is not disabled and therefore not eligible for benefits under Title

XVI of the Social Security Act. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit reversed and remanded for further administrative proceedings. Plaintiff now seeks

attorney’s fees and costs in the total amount of $20,693.86, which includes 119.9 hours of

attorney time. 

A prevailing party in an action against the United States is entitled to an award of

attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA unless the government’s position was “substantially

Case 2:05-cv-04233-FJM Document 44 Filed 08/12/09 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 -

justified.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The Commissioner does not contest the propriety of

a fee award or the claimed hourly rate. Response at 1 n.1. Instead, he argues that the number

of hours claimed is unreasonable. 

A prevailing party is only entitled to reasonable fees. Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d

1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). The Commissioner contends that plaintiff’s fee request

improperly includes 2.8 hours of administrative or clerical tasks that are not recoverable

under the EAJA. See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 n.10, 109 S. Ct. 2463, 2472

n.10 (1989) (“purely clerical or secretarial tasks” are not recoverable). 

Plaintiff’s counsel billed for time spent preparing proofs of service, calendaring due

dates, and dictating instructions on printing and binding appellate briefs. The billed time also

includes obtaining multiple extensions of deadlines–a far too common practice. While we

agree with counsel that calendaring deadlines and binding briefs are necessary tasks in the

course of litigation, costs associated with such clerical duties are typically considered

overhead expenses reflected in a lawyer’s hourly rate and are not properly reimbursable.

Therefore, we reduce plaintiff’s fee request by 2.8 hours, or $466.32. 

The Commissioner also objects to the 17.5 hours spent drafting the motion for

summary judgment and the 54.8 hours spent preparing the Ninth Circuit briefs. He argues

that the issues presented in this case are “routine,” and that, because plaintiff’s counsel

performed the work at every stage of the administrative and judicial process, his increased

efficiency requires a time reduction. Response at 4. The Commissioner suggests that a 25

hour reduction is appropriate.

We disagree that this was merely a routine matter. While certain broad issues are

commonly presented in Social Security cases (i.e., weight accorded medical source opinion

or subjective complaint testimony), analysis of these legal issues is driven by fact-intensive

application of an extensive administrative record. Moreover, given the complexity of the

issues presented in this case, and the fact that this case has spanned multiple levels of appeals

over the course of three years, we do not consider the claimed hours unreasonable.

Case 2:05-cv-04233-FJM Document 44 Filed 08/12/09 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 -

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff’s application for attorney’s fees

and costs in the total amount of $20,227.54 (doc. 34).

DATED this 12th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:05-cv-04233-FJM Document 44 Filed 08/12/09 Page 3 of 3