Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03096/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03096-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0405id Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

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

PENNY LEE KREBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(ECF No. 31)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Penny Lee Krebs’s Joint Motion for the Award 

and Payment of Attorney Fees and Expenses Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act

(“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) and Costs Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, (ECF No. 31). 

The parties have stipulated that Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill will compensate Plaintiff 

Penny Lee Krebs’ attorney’s fees and expenses in the amount of $4,500.00 pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2412(d). (Id. at 1.) The parties also stipulated no costs will be awarded pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Having considered Plaintiff’s arguments and the law, the Court rules 

as follows.

BACKGROUND

On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint requesting the Court reverse and 

set aside Defendant’s decision denying Plaintiff her Social Security disability benefits. 

(ECF No. 1.) The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which were referred 

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 33 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

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

to Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal. Judge Skomal issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Court grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, deny Defendant’s Motion, and remand the case for further administrative 

proceedings. (ECF No. 25.) This Court adopted the R&R on March 20, 2018 and 

remanded the case to the Social Security Administration. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff 

originally filed a motion for attorney’s fees on May 2, 2018, (ECF No. 27), which the Court 

denied without prejudice as premature, (ECF No. 28). On June 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed the 

present motion requesting attorney’s fees.

LEGAL STANDARD

The EAJA provides, in relevant part,

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall 

award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and 

other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to 

subsection (a), incurred by that party in any civil action (other 

than cases sounding in tort), including proceedings for judicial 

review of agency action, brought by or against the United States 

in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court 

finds that the position of the United States was substantially 

justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The prevailing party must file an application within thirty days 

of final judgment. § 2412(d)(1)(B). That application must show that the party is a 

prevailing party, is eligible to receive an award under this subsection, and the amount 

sought, which includes an itemized statement stating the actual time spent and the rate that 

the fees and expenses were computed. Id.

ANALYSIS

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) provides that an application for fees must be filed “within 

thirty days of final judgment.” The EAJA further defines final judgment as “a judgment 

that is final and not appealable.” § 2412(d)(2)(G) (emphasis added). Judgment in a 

Supplemental Security Income case is no longer appealable when the 60-day postjudgment appeal period has run. See Hoa Hong Van v. Barnhart, 483 F.3d 600, 607 (9th 

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 33 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

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

Cir. 2007) (citing Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 102 (1991); and Barry v. Bowen, 

825 F.2d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). This Court previously 

denied Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees because it determined that Plaintiff had not 

waited until the final judgment was “not appealable.” (ECF No. 28, at 3–4.) The Court 

then found that the appeal period in this case ends May 21, 2018, (id. at 4), and denied 

without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion as premature, (see id.) Plaintiff’s present Motion is 

now timely because it was filed after the appeal period ended on May 21, 2018, but before 

the EAJA’s 30-day filing period ran, i.e., thirty days after May 21, 2018. 

“Under the EAJA, attorneys’ fees are to be awarded to a party winning a sentencefour remand unless the Commissioner shows that his position with respect to the issue on 

which the district court based its remand was ‘substantially justified.’” Ulugalu v. 

Berryhill, No. 17-cv-1087-GPC-JLB, 2018 WL 2012330, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2018)

(quoting Lewis v. Barnhart, 281 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2002)). Here, Defendant has 

stipulated to the attorney’s fees and does not argue that the prevailing party’s position was 

substantially unjustified. The Court agrees with the parties that fees are warranted.

The amount of fees awarded are based upon prevailing market rates for the kind and 

quality of the services provided. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Such fees, however, shall not 

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

a 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)(ii). The Ninth Circuit’s 2017 

hourly rate, factoring in cost of living, was $196.79. See United States Courts for the Ninth 

Circuit, Statutory Maximum Rates Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000039, (last visited June 18, 

2018). 

Here, Plaintiff requests attorney’s fees and calculated the hourly rate at $190.89 per 

hour and paralegal fees at a rate of $125 per hour. (See ECF No. 31-2.) Thus, the hourly 

rate falls under the Ninth Circuit’s EAJA 2017 benchmark. Next, Plaintiff’s counsel 

expended 21.7 attorney hours and 3.5 paralegal hours. (See id.) The Court finds both the 

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 33 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-3096 JLS (BGS)

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

hourly rate and the hours expended to be reasonable. Cf. Ulugalu, 2018 WL 2012330, at 

*3–4 (approving hourly rate of $196.79, with 25.3 attorney hours and 9.9 paralegal hours 

worked). As previously noted, Defendant stipulated to the attorney’s fees. The Court finds 

Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees to be reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Joint Motion, (ECF No. 31).

Accordingly, the Court AWARDS attorney’s fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $4,500.00

and no costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-03096-JLS-BGS Document 33 Filed 06/21/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4