Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06070/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-06070-2/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 At the very end of its opposition brief, the Commissioner requests that this

court “reduce the fees request because it is excessive.” (See Opp. at 3:11). The court

assumes that this request was included in the Commissioner’s brief in error. As noted above,

the opposition papers clearly state that the Commissioner does not object to the amount

claimed. Nor does the Commissioner offer any argument on the issue of excessiveness.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DANNY OROPEZA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant. /

No. C07-06070 HRL

ORDER ON CLAIM FOR FEES AND

EXPENSES UNDER THE EQUAL

ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT

[Re: Docket No. 22]

Plaintiff Danny Oropeza appealed a final decision by the Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration (“Commissioner”) finding that Oropeza was not disabled

within the meaning of the Social Security Act. The court granted in part and denied in

part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded the matter for further

proceedings. Plaintiff now moves for an award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access

to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). He further requests that the fees be

made payable to his attorney. The Commissioner agrees that plaintiff is entitled to EAJA

fees and does not object to the amount requested.1

 However, the Commissioner contends

that, absent a valid assignment, EAJA fees are payable to plaintiff, not his attorney.

*E-FILED 06-17-2010*

Case 5:07-cv-06070-HRL Document 25 Filed 06/17/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

The parties have had an opportunity to brief the issue. Plaintiff did not file a reply. 

The court deems the matter submitted on the papers without oral argument. For the

reasons stated below, the requested fees shall be made payable directly to plaintiff.

The EAJA authorizes an award of attorney’s fees to a “prevailing party” in

litigation against the United States:

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). Several courts, including those within this circuit, have

concluded that “both the plain language and construction by other courts of the EAJA

support defendant’s contention that the term ‘prevailing party’ excludes the parties’

counsel.” McCarty v. Astrue, 505 F. Supp.2d 624, 629 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Reeves v.

Astrue, 526 F.3d 732, 738 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The EAJA means what it says, attorney’s

fees are awarded to the prevailing party, not to the prevailing party’s attorney.”). More

recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that EAJA awards belong to the prevailing

litigant, not the litigant’s attorney. Astrue v. Ratliff, --- S. Ct. ----, No. 08-1322, 2010

WL 2346547 (U.S., June 14, 2010).

In this case, there is no indication that there has been a valid assignment or that the

fee award properly may be paid to plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, the Commissioner

shall pay the $3,940.42 attorney’s fees award to plaintiff Danny Oropeza, and not to his

attorney.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 17, 2010

Case 5:07-cv-06070-HRL Document 25 Filed 06/17/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5:07-cv-06070-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

James Hunt Miller jim_miller0@yahoo.com

Mark Win mark.win@ssa.gov 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:07-cv-06070-HRL Document 25 Filed 06/17/10 Page 3 of 3