Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01370/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01370-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES OSKAR HILDINGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.13-CV-1370-W (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED

STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD

AND PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY

FEES AND EXPENSES

PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d) AND COSTS

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1920

[DOC. NO. 25]

On August 28, 2014, the parties filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and

Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”). (Doc. No. 23.) The parties

have agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, that Plaintiff James Oskar Hildinger

(“Plaintiff”) be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $3,000.00 under

the EAJA. Id. at 1. In their Motion, the parties stated that the $3,000.00 amount

represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Plaintiff by counsel

in connection with the above entitled civil action, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d). Id.

On September 11, 2014 this Court denied without prejudice the parties’

Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Under the EAJA for failure to include “an

1 13CV1370

Case 3:13-cv-01370-W-WVG Document 28 Filed 09/26/14 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

itemized statement from an attorney...stating the actual time expended and the rate at

which fees and other expenses were computed,” as required by 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(1)(B). (Doc. No. 24 at 2). The Court Ordered the parties to resubmit their

motion consistent with Section 2412(d)(1)(B). Id. 

On September 17, 2014, the parties filed an Amended Motion for Attorneys

Fees and EAJA. (Doc. No. 25.) Once again, the Amended Motion did not include an

itemized statement from an attorney stating the actual time expended and the rate at

which fees and other expenses were computed, as required by Section 2412(d)(1)(B),

and Ordered by the Court. On September 17, 2014, the Court’s clerk contacted

Plaintiff’s counsel to inquire about the failure to provide an itemized statement. On

September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Filing of Exhibit 2 to the Stipulation for

Fees. (Doc. No. 26.) Exhibit 2 included an itemized statement from an attorney stating

the actual time expended, but the rate of the two Responsible Attorneys was cutoff and

not readable. 

On September 24, 2014, the Court’s clerk again contacted Plaintiff’s counsel

to inquire about re-filing Exhibit 2 so that the rate of the two Responsible Attorneys

could be deciphered, as required by Section 2412(d)(1)(B). The voicemail was full for

both of the Responsible Attorneys listed on the statement in Exhibit 2, and therefore,

the Court’s clerk was unable to leave a voice message for either attorney. This is a

Motion requesting attorney’s fees to be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Court would

expect that Plaintiff’s counsel would be making every effort to file this Motion

correctly, rather than relying on the Court’s efforts to contact Plaintiff’s counsel to

ensure compliance with the statute and correct filing errors.

On September 25, 2014, the Court’s clerk again contacted Plaintiff’s counsel. 

The clerk left a message with an individual in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office, explaining

that Exhibit 2 needed to be re-filed so that the rate of the two Responsible Attorneys

could be deciphered. On September 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental Document

with Plaintiff’s explanation of the time sheet and hourly rate. (Doc. No. 27.) The

2 13CV1370

Case 3:13-cv-01370-W-WVG Document 28 Filed 09/26/14 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

Supplemental Document explained the breakdown of the hourly rates for the

Responsible Attorneys and Paralegal staff listed in the itemized statement previously

filed as Exhibit 2 (Doc. No. 26). Id. The parties have now provided the Court with an

itemized statement from an attorney that states the actual time expended, and the rate

at which fees and other expenses were computed, as required by Section 2412(d)(1)(B).

Plaintiff’s counsel requests that the fees be paid directly to his law office,

subject to any offset from debt owed to the Federal Government. (Doc. No. 25 at 2;

citing Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521, 2529 (2010) and United States v. $186,416.00

in U.S. Currency, 722, F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013).1/ Subject to a finding that the

Plaintiff owes no debt to the Federal Government, this Court takes no issue with the

fees being paid directly to Plaintiff’s counsel’s law office, as requested. 

The Court finds that the parties have now complied with the requirements of

Section 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B), that Plaintiff’s request is fair and reasonable, and

the parties’ Amended Motion for Attorney Fees and Expenses Under the EAJA is

hereby GRANTED. The Court Orders that Defendant pay Plaintiff the amount of

$3,000.00 under the EAJA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), subject to any debt that

Plaintiff may owe to the Federal Government. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 26, 2014

 Hon. William V. Gallo

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

1/

 Defendant does not stipulate to the citation of United States v. $186,416.00 in U.S.

Currency, 722, F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2013), and states that it reserves the right to

challenge the applicability of this case to any Social Security Case. (Doc. No. 25 at

2, n. 1.) 

3 13CV1370

Case 3:13-cv-01370-W-WVG Document 28 Filed 09/26/14 Page 3 of 3