Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00067/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00067-1/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

- 1 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA ROCIO AGUILERA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Application for Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access

to Justice Act (Doc. # 18).

Background

On November 20, 2003, Plaintiff applied to the Commissioner of Social Security for

Social Security Disability Benefits (Administrative Record (“AR”) 15). The Commissioner

denied Plaintiff’s application for benefits, and again on reconsideration (AR 15). Plaintiff

thereafter requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). On April 11,

2005, the ALJ issued a written decision denying Plaintiff’s application for benefits (AR 15-23).

On December 13, 2005, the Appeals Council adopted the ALJ’s findings (AR 6-8). On

January 11, 2008, Plaintiff initiated a civil action challenging the ALJ’s decision to deny

benefits by filing the Complaint (Doc. # 1). On June 23, 2008, this Court issued an order

granting a joint motion to remand pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g) (Doc.

# 12), and remanding the case to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings.

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 8
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 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

On February 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed the Application for Fees Pursuant to the Equal

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. section 2412. Plaintiff contends that she is the

prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJA, and that as the prevailing party, she is

entitled to EAJA fees for all work reasonably performed. Plaintiff contends that she is entitled

to EAJA fees for 36.38 hours of service at a rate of $170 per hour, totaling $6,174.60. Plaintiff

submitted an affidavit and itemization of services in support of the Application for Fees. On

March 16, 2008, Defendant filed the Opposition to the Application for Fees (Doc. # 21).

Defendant does not contest that Plaintiff is the prevailing party and is entitled to EAJA fees.

Defendant does not assert that Plaintiff’s requested rate of $170.00 is unreasonable. However,

Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s requested fees for 36.38 hours of service is unreasonable,

and that Plaintiff’s request should be reduced by 10.72 hours. On March 24, 2009, Plaintiff

filed the Reply (Doc. # 22). Plaintiff contends that her fee request for 36.38 hours of service

is reasonable, and requests additional EAJA fees for 4.5 hours of service at a rate of $170 per

hour, totaling $760.00, for time spent reviewing the Opposition and preparing the Reply. 

Analysis

The EAJA provides:

Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a

prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . .

incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort),

including proceedings for 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). Fees awarded pursuant to the EAJA must be reasonable, and the

party seeking such fees bears the burden of proving that the fees and hourly rate requested are

reasonable. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); see also Gates v. Deukmejian, 987

F.2d 1392, 1397 (9th Cir. 1992) (it is plaintiff’s burden to document “the appropriate hours

expended in the litigation by submitting evidence in support of those hours worked”). Where

fees are not shown to be reasonable, the court may reduce the award accordingly. Hensley,

461 U.S. at 433-34. District courts have discretion in determining the amount of a fee award,

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 8
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 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

including the reasonableness of the hours claimed by the prevailing party. Gates, 987 F.2d at

1398. 

A. Fees for Work Performed During Pre-Complaint Administrative Proceedings

Defendant contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover fees for time her attorney

spent representing her during the administrative proceedings. Defendant asserts that

“Plaintiff’s fee request should be reduced because it included attorney time expended during

the prior administrative proceedings.” Opposition, p. 3. Defendant contends that the

administrative proceedings in this case did not conclude until November 25, 2007. Defendant

contends that the following entries document work performed before the administrative

proceedings in this case concluded, and should be excluded:

1. 10/10/07 Review Hearing decision denial dated September 26, 2007 –

2.50;

2. 10/16/07 Prepare/ review/ edit/ sign letter to client with attachments and

documents – .40;

Prepare/ review/edit/ sign status letter for client – .25;

3. 11/15/07 Prepare, review, edit, sign exceptions to Hearing decision to

Appeals Council – 1.25 

Id. at 4. Defendant contends that “[t]hese tasks, representing a total 4.4 attorney hours, were

performed during the administrative proceedings and, thus, are not compensable under the

EAJA.” Id. 

Plaintiff contends that “[a]n award of fees for pre-filing activities directly related to the

civil suit, such as review of the administrative transcript” is proper. Reply, p. 2-3. Plaintiff

contends that “an attorney’s pre-complaint efforts to investigate, undertake legal research, and

conduct informal discovery relevant to developing a case are properly recoverable.” Id.

Plaintiff contends that the entries for 10/10/07, 10/16/07, and 11/15/07 involved review of the

case and the second ALJ denial decision, which was “reasonable and necessary prior to the

date set for filing a civil action [] in light of the extensive record, procedural posture of the

case, and nature of the issues.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff contends that it “is reasonably inferred” that

these tasks relate to the civil action presently before the Court. Id. 

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 3 of 8
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 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

5 U.S.C. section 504 “is the only part of the EAJA that allows fees and expenses for

administrative proceedings conducted prior to the filing of a civil action.” Melkonyan v.

Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 95 (1991). Plaintiff does not request attorney fees pursuant to section

504, and does not assert that she is requesting fees for administrative proceedings. Instead,

Plaintiff asserts that the requested fees are related to the civil action in this Court. Plaintiff

asserts that the fees incurred prior to initiating the civil action in this Court are compensable

because “[i]t is reasonably inferred” that the time entries for 10/10/07 (“Review Hearing

decision denial dated September 26, 2007”), 10/16/07 (“Prepare/ review/ edit/ sign letter to

client with attachments and documents” and “Prepare/ review/ edit/ sign status letter for

client”), and 11/15/07 (“Review Letter from Appeals Council and hearing decision

instructions”) were related to the civil suit, not for administrative proceedings. Opposition, p.

3. These time entries, however, are ambiguous as to whether the time spent was in connection

with the administrative proceedings or with the civil suit. It is Plaintiff’s burden to establish

that she is entitled to the requested fees. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy

this burden with respect to the requested fees for 10/10/07, 10/16/07 and 11/15/07 because

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this time spent was related to the civil action as opposed to

the the administrative proceedings. The Court reduces Plaintiff’s requested fee award by 4.4

hours.

B. Fees for Work Performed for “Non-Attorney” Tasks

Defendant contends that Plaintiff is not entitled to recover fees for time her attorney

spent performing tasks that could have been performed by a non-attorney. Defendant contends

that the following entries relate to clerical/ secretarial tasks, and should be excluded:

1. 01/17/08 Review, edit, sign documents for service on three Defendants

– 0.17;

2. 01/17/08 Review, edit, sign Certificate of Service – 0.17;

3. 01/17/08 Review USDC Document 4 – 0.08;

4. 01/30/08 Review USPS confirmation of delivery 3 Defendants – 0.12;

5. 05/15/08 Review, edit, sign Certificate of Service (Document 9) – 0.08;

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 4 of 8
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

- 5 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

6. 05/16/08 Phonecall with Clerk Mike (619) 557-7357 re: discrepancies in

Notice and Motion captions – 0.22;

7. 05/16/08 Prepare, review, edit Amended Notice of Motion, Brief, and 4

attachments (four modification attempts ) (Documents 10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-

3, 10-4, 10-5) – 0.75;

8. 08/26/09 Review Pacer dockets – 0.15;

9. 12/04/08 Review USDC Document 13 – 0.08.

Id. at 5. Defendant contends that “[t]hese tasks representing a total 1.82 hours are clerical in

nature, and are properly considered overhead costs that are not compensable under the EAJA.”

Opposition, p. 4. 

With respect to the 1/18/08 and 5/15/08 entries, Plaintiff contends that counsel “must

review all documents to which she affixes her signature for filing with this Court including

service documents.” Reply, p. 3. With respect to the 1/30/08 entry, Plaintiff contends that

“[t]ranscription, review, edit and signature” of these documents “was not a task for a nonattorney,” and that “Plaintiff signed these documents and thus her participation was required.”

Id. With respect to 1/17/08, 8/26/08 and 12/4/08 time entries, Plaintiff contends that counsel

“has an ethical obligation to review notices from the Court as well as all case filings,” and that

Plaintiff is entitled to bill 4.8 minutes, “the lowest possible rate of time possible,” to “review

a document received by the United States District Court.” Id. at 4. With respect to the 5/16/08

entries, Plaintiff contends that “[p]honecalls with a clerk from the court regarding

discrepancies in Plaintiff’s filed documents required Plaintiff’s attorney’s attention and were

not clerical tasks.” Id. 

It was proper for Plaintiff’s attorney to review all documents to which she affixed her

signature for filing in this Court, including service documents. Review of service documents

and other documents filed with this Court is not clerical work that could have been performed

by a non-attorney. Plaintiff has billed minimal amounts for the review of documents filed with

the Court. The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s requested fees for1/17/08 (“Review, edit, sign

documents for service on 3 Defendants”), 1/17/08 (“Review, edit, sign Certificate of Service”),

1/17/08 (“Review USDC Document 4”), 1/30/08 (“Review USPS confirmation of deliver 3

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 5 of 8
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 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

Defendants”), 5/15/08 (“Review, edit, sign Certificate of Service”), 8/26/08 (“Review Pacer

dockets”), and 12/4/08 (“Review USDC Document”) are for work that was properly performed

by an attorney, and are reasonable. Plaintiff also requests fees for the following services:

5/16/08 (“Phonecall with Clerk Mike (619) 557-7357 re: discrepancies in Notice and Motion

captions”), and 5/16/08 (“Prepare, review, edit Amended Notice of Motion, Brief, and 4

attachments (four modification attempts).” Fee Itemization, p. 2. The Court concludes that

these requested fees are not reasonable because they relate to Plaintiff’s efforts to cure

discrepancies in Plaintiff’s attempt to file documents with the Court. It is not proper for the

government to the carry the burden to pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees incurred as a result of filing

errors by Plaintiff’s attorney. In light of the foregoing, the Court reduces Plaintiff’s requested

fee award by 0.97 hours. 

C. Excessiveness of Fee Request

Defendant contends that the time requested for preparing the Application for Fees is

excessive. Defendant states: “Plaintiff claims a total of 6.5 hours for preparation of the EAJA

motion and petition. This request is inflated and should therefore be reduced by at least 4.5

hours.” Opposition, p. 4. Defendant contends that “Plaintiff’s attorney has submitted a routine,

uncomplicated motion and petition for attorney’s fees under EAJA,” and that “Plaintiff’s

request to be reimbursed tp 6.5 hours for this task bears no rational relation to the number of

hours her attorney spent litigating this case and should be reduced accordingly.” Id. at 5.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff should be awarded EAJA fees of no more than 2 hours for

the preparation of the Application for Fees. Defendant has not filed any objection to Plaintiff’s

request for an additional $760.00 for 4.5 hours of attorney work in connection with preparing

the Reply. 

Plaintiff contends the time spent preparing the EAJA Petition was necessary and

supported by the record. Plaintiff contends that “[c]ase law both supporting and opposing

Plaintiff[‘s] position had to be located, investigated, compared and contrasted to test the

strength of a motion for EAJA fees with facts similar to those found in Plaintiff’s case.” Reply,

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 6 of 8
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

- 7 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

p. 4. Plaintiff requests additional attorney fees for the following work related to the

preparation of the Reply: 

3/18/09: Review Defendant’s opposition . . . 1.50

3/19/09: Research case law, prepare, review, edit first draft of reply 1.00

3/22/09: Review and edit of reply brief 1.00

3/23/09: Final review and edit of reply brief 1.00

Id. at 5-6. 

The prevailing party is entitled to fees under the EAJA for fees incurred in litigation

over the amount of the EAJA fee award. INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154, 161 (1990); see also Love

v. Reilly, 924 F.2d 1492, 1496 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Under the EAJA, the prevailing party is

automatically entitled to attorney’s fees for any fee litigation once the district court has made

a determination that the government’s position lacks substantial justification.”). In

determining an award for fees incurred in litigation regarding the amount of the EAJA fee

award, one of the factors courts consider is “the awards in similar cases.” Widrig v. Apfel, 140

F.3d 1207, 1209, n. 5 (9th Cir. 1998); see e.g, Patterson v. Chaney, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1212, 1214

(C.D. Cal. 2000) (plaintiff “entitled to reimbursement for the three and a half hours of attorney

time spent litigating this fee motion”); Shinn v. Astrue, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55554 (E.D.

Cal. 2008) (reducing fee award for preparing initial EAJA petition from requested 1.2 hours

to 0.8 hours because the EAJA petition “provides little more than the details mandated by the

EAJA and the basic law regarding hourly fees and [plaintiff’s] entitlement to attorney fees as

the prevailing party;” and reducing fee award for preparing reply from requested 5.2 hours to

3.5 hours); Gomez v. Astrue, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59376 (S.D. Cal. 2008) (reducing fee

award for preparing initial EAJA motion from requested 17.15 hours to 7 hours and for reply

from 14.25 hours to 4 hours). 

Plaintiff’s initial Application for Fees is a straight-forward, routine and uncomplicated

petition for EAJA fees. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s requested fee award of 6.5 hours for

the initial fee petition is excessive, and reduces Plaintiff’s requested fee award with respect to

the initial Application for Fees by 3 hours. 

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 7 of 8
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

- 8 - 08cv67 WQH (JMA)

With regard to the Reply, Plaintiff requests and award for an additional 4.5 hours of

services performed. The Reply provides a comprehensive response to new issues raised in the

Opposition. Defendant has not filed any objection to the hours spent preparing the Reply.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the requested award for 4.5 hours is reasonable.

D. Conclusion

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s requested award in the initial Application for Fees

36.38 hours of service is reduced by 8.37 hours; and that Plaintiff is entitled to an additional

award for 4.5 hours of service performed with respect to the Reply. Plaintiff is entitled to a

total EAJA fee award of $5,525.70 for 32.51 hours of service at a rate of $170.00 per hour. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application for Fees Pursuant to the Equal access

to Justice Act (Doc. # 18) is GRANTED in part. The Court awards $5,525.70 in attorney

fees.

DATED: April 28, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00067-WQH-JMA Document 23 Filed 04/28/09 Page 8 of 8