Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00445/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00445-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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 The parties consented to the Jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. On June 27, 2007, the 1

Honorable Anthony W. Ishii reassigned the case to the undersigned for all purposes. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA GALE FOUISSI, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:07cv0445 DLB

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(Document 23)

This matter is before the Court on a petition for attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal

Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), filed on April 3, 2008, by Plaintiff’s

attorney, Jeffrey Duarte.

The matter is currently before the Court on the parties’ briefs, which were submitted,

without oral argument, to the Honorable Dennis L. Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

1

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff commenced the instant action on March 20, 2007. On March 4, 2008, the Court

granted the parties’ stipulation to remand the action pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 405(g). 

Case 1:07-cv-00445-DLB -DLB Document 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 For civil actions commenced on or after March 29, 1996, the EAJA provides for an hourly rate of 2

$125.00, unless the court determines that an adjustment for cost of living or a special factor justifies a higher fee. 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A). Mr. Duarte calculates the cost of living increases as providing for an hourly rate of $168.33

in 2007 and an hourly rate of $171.59 for time worked in 2008. Defendant does not contest these hourly rates.

2

Mr. Duarte, filed this motion on April 3, 2008, requesting $5,790.59 in attorney’s fees

pursuant to the EAJA. Defendant opposed the motion on April 14, 2008, arguing that the request

was unreasonable.

DISCUSSION 

A. Reasonableness of Request

Under the EAJA, a prevailing party will be awarded reasonable attorney fees, unless the

government demonstrates that its position in the litigation was “substantially justified,” or that

“special circumstances make an award unjust.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (d)(1)(A). An award of

attorney fees must be reasonable. Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001). 

“[E]xcessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary” hours should be excluded from a fee award,

and charges that are not properly billable to a client are not properly billable to the government. 

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). 

In his application, Mr. Duarte requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,790.59 (for

34.1 hours ). In support of his request, he attaches an itemization of time spent from January 25, 2

2007, through April 3, 2008. 

Defendant does not dispute that Mr. Duarte is entitled to fees as the prevailing party. 

However, Defendant points to specific entries and contends that they are improper requests

and/or excessive. Defendant also generally argues that the total request is unreasonable given

that the Commissioner agreed to voluntarily remand at the settlement letter stage, negating the

need for any briefing.

1. Clerical Work

Defendant opposes certain fees requested because the entries reflect “clerical or

secretarial work.” Specifically, Defendant opposes the following:

Case 1:07-cv-00445-DLB -DLB Document 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 6
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 The Court notes that for each of these clerical tasks, there is an entry relating to the actual drafting of the 3

document.

3

March 20, 2007 File Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis

.4

June 4, 2007 Confirm complaint has been

served on Commissioner and

U.S. Attorney General by

U.S. Marshall

.2

June 16, 2007 Review Summons Returned

Executed, dated 6/15/07

.1

November 30, 2007 Send Confidential Letter to

U.S. Attorney

.3

February 29, 2008 Fax to U.S. Attorney with

signed Stipulation and Order

for Remand

.2

Defendant correctly argues that Mr. Duarte should not be compensated for non-attorney

level work. Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544, 553 (7th Cir. 1999); Sorenson

v. Concannon, 161 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1168 (D.Or. 2001) (purely clerical tasks, such as faxing,

mailing, etc., are not compensable under the EAJA); Wilkett v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n,

844 F.2d 867, 875-876, n. 6 (D.C. Cir. 1988). The Court agrees with Defendant that time spent

filing (.4 hours), sending (.3 hours) and faxing (.2 hours) various documents is clerical work and

should not be compensated. However, reviewing court documents and service documents, while

3

mundane, are tasks that are routinely performed by an attorney. See eg. Williams v. Apfel, 2000

WL 684259, *2 (S.D. Ind. 2000) (preparing the complaint and return of service documents and

reviewing the answer, the Commissioner's brief, motions, and court orders are not tasks typically

performed by clerical staff, as the attorney is responsible for seeing that the tasks are performed

correctly). Accordingly, of the time identified by Defendant, the Court will allow the time spent

confirming service and reviewing service documents (.3 hours).

2. Extension of Time

Defendant next objects to a total of .9 hours spent in connection with a stipulation to

extend time. Mr. Duarte requests payment for the following:

Case 1:07-cv-00445-DLB -DLB Document 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 6
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

4

October 26, 2007 Draft and prepare Stipulation

& Order to Extend Time 

.4

October 26, 2007 Fax to U.S. Attorney re

Stipulation & Order to

Extend Time 

.2

October 26, 2007 Electronically file Stipulation

& Order to Extend Time 

.2

October 31, 2007 Review USDC Order

approving Stipulation &

Order to Extend Time, dated

10/31/07

.1

Defendant objects to this time because Plaintiff “does not explain why it is reasonable to

bill the Commissioner for seeking an extension of time to allow her attorney to complete her

confidential letter.” Opposition, at 3. While the Court agrees that .9 hours is excessive, it does

not agree that the request should be entirely disallowed. See eg. Samuel v. Barnhart, 316

F.Supp.2d 768 (E.D.Wis. 2004) (claimant was entitled to collect fees for time attorney spent

drafting request for extension of time, where time spent was less than half of an hour and

extensions of time were regularly requested and granted in Social Security cases). Requests for

extensions of time are common in Social Security and Counsel’s request was ultimately for the

benefit of Plaintiff and part of her representation. Taking into consideration the fact that some of

the time requested is for clerical work and the nature of the work performed, the Court finds that

.2 hours is reasonable, and will be allowed.

3. Order to Show Cause

In a similar argument, Defendant contends that Mr. Duarte’s request of 1.3 hours relating

to discharging an Order to Show Cause issued against Plaintiff is inappropriate. The February

21, 2008, Order to Show Cause was issued after Plaintiff failed to file her opening brief. In his

response, Mr. Duarte explained that Defendant agreed to remand by letter dated January 17,

2008, and he believed that his agreement to remand had been conveyed to Defendant by

telephone. He stated that once the Order to Show Cause issued, he realized “that apparently was

not completed,” and requested that the Court find good cause given that an agreement to remand

Case 1:07-cv-00445-DLB -DLB Document 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 4 of 6
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 Mr. Duarte has been a member of the organization for four years. 

4

5

had been reached. On March 3, 2008, the Court discharged the Order to Show Cause based on

the agreement to remand.

Defendant adds in his opposition that he attempted to settle the case twice prior to the

issuance of the Order to Show Cause and that Plaintiff did not respond until after the order

issued. Defendant believes that it is unreasonable to bill him when he diligently attempted to

settle the action within the time allotted.

The standard for awarding fees, however, does not necessarily involve a due

diligence/excusable neglect analysis. Rather, the statute provides for attorneys’ fees “incurred by

that party in any civil action.” The award may be limited or denied where the Court finds that

special circumstances make an award unjust, or where the prevailing party engaged in conduct

that unduly and unnecessarily delayed a resolution. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2412(d)(1)(A), (C). That

Plaintiff’s counsel had to defend against an Order to Show Cause based on a miscommunication

does not rise to the level of special circumstances or undue delay. The Court will therefore allow

the 1.3 hours requested for this task. 

4. Preparation of EAJA Motion

 Finally, Defendant opposes 11 hours Mr. Duarte requests in connection with preparation

of the instant motion. His request is broken down into 6.0 hours for “Legal Research re EAJA

motion” and 5 hours for “preparation and drafting” of the motion. 

Attorney’s fees for attorney fee litigation are compensable. Love v. Reilly, 924 F.2d

1492, 1497 (9th Cir. 1991). However, the request must be reasonable. Defendant argues that it

is “hard to imagine how much independent research and drafting” when into the preparation of

the motion given that the payee argument (which is actually irrelevant to the outcome of this

motion) was copied-and-pasted from a brief on the National Organization of Social Security

Claimant’s Representatives’ website. Opposition, at 4. As to the remainder of the motion, 4

Defendant contends that given Mr. Duarte’s assertion that he is experienced in Social Security

Case 1:07-cv-00445-DLB -DLB Document 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 5 of 6
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

6

litigation and has won 17 cases in federal district court, it is unlikely that it was drafted anew. 

Defendant suggests that the Court award 2 hours for preparation of the motion.

The Court agrees with Defendant that 11 hours is an unreasonable request. The motion,

as well as the supporting documentation, contains mainly boilerplate-type language, with some 

customization relating to Plaintiff’s action. Accordingly, the Court will allow 2.0 hours for

preparation of this motion.

AWARD

Mr. Duarte’s motion is therefore GRANTED. He is awarded fees in the total amount of

$3,976.30 ([17.2 hours spent in 2007 at $168.33 per hour] + [6.3 hours spent in 2008 at $171.59

per hour]). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00445-DLB -DLB Document 27 Filed 05/06/08 Page 6 of 6