Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08155/USCOURTS-azd-3_10-cv-08155-1/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

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Doran

Plaintiff, 

v.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-8155-PCT (LOA)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees

Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 30) In his

response, Defendant, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (the

“Commissioner”), advises that the parties have agreed that an award of attorneys’ fees in the

amount of $ 4,500.00 is reasonable. (Doc. 35) However, Defendant opposes the request that

the fees be paid to Plaintiff’s counsel, rather than to Plaintiff. 

I. Background

In October 2006, Plaintiff, applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and Social

Security Income pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 401-34 and §¶ 1381-83f. Plaintiff’s requests were

denied initially and on reconsideration. Thereafter, on Plaintiff’s request, a hearing was held

before Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Joan G. Knight. The ALJ found Plaintiff was not

disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act. This decision became the final

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security when the Social Security Appeals Council

Case 3:10-cv-08155-LOA Document 37 Filed 03/07/12 Page 1 of 4
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 -

denied Plaintiff’s request for review. Plaintiff sought review by this Court. On September

12, 2011, the Court entered an order remanding this matter for further proceedings, and the

Clerk of Court entered judgment. (Docs. 28, 29) Plaintiff now seeks an award of attorney’s

fees under the EAJA. 

II. Attorney’s Fees under the EAJA 

In any action brought by or against the United States, the EAJA provides that “a court

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

unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified.” 28

U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The EAJA creates a presumption that fees will be awarded to the

prevailing party unless the Government establishes that its position was “substantially

justified.” See Thomas v. Peterson, 841 F.2d 332, 335 (9th Cir. 1988). Substantially justified

means “justified in substance or in the main — that is, justified to a degree that could satisfy

a reasonable person.” Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 565 (1988) (internal citations

omitted). A substantially justified position must have a reasonable basis both in law and fact.

Gutierrez v. Barnhart, 274 F.3d 1255,1258 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The Government bears the burden of establishing substantial justification. Gutierrez,

at 1258. In determining whether the Government’s position was substantially justified the

court considers both the Government’s position during the litigation and “the action or failure

to act by the agency upon which the civil action is based.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(D). Thus,

the court considers: “first, whether the government was substantially justified in taking its

original action; and second, whether the government was substantially justified in defending

the validity of the action in court.” Gutierrez, 274 F.3d at 1258 (citation omitted).

III. Analysis

After Plaintiff filed his motion for attorney’s fees, Defendant contacted Plaintiff’s

counsel to settle the issue of fees. Defendant’s counsel advises the Court that Defendant

has agreed to pay Plaintiff $4,500.00 in EAJA fees. (Doc. 35) In his Reply, Plaintiff

confirms that the parties have agreed that an award of $4,500.00 in EAJA fees is

Case 3:10-cv-08155-LOA Document 37 Filed 03/07/12 Page 2 of 4
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 -

reasonable. (Doc. 36) The Court finds that the hours worked, hourly rates, and stipulated

the amount of attorney’s fees are reasonable.

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court order that “any check be sent to

Plaintiff’s counsel’s office.” (Doc. 31) Defendant opposes that request and argues that

the attorney’s fees are payable to Plaintiff, not his counsel. (Doc. 35) In Astrue v. Ratliff,

560 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010), the United States Supreme Court held that EAJA

fees are payable to the prevailing party, not his attorney. Although Plaintiff recognizes

Ratliff’s holding, Plaintiff states that the fee agreement between Plaintiff and counsel

provides that any EAJA fees are assigned to Plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff states that,

“while the EAJA fees are payable to Doran, it is respectfully submitted that this Court

should order any check sent to Plaintiff’s counsel’s office.” (Doc. 31) Plaintiff does not

request that the check be made payable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

As previously stated, the Court in Ratliff held that EAJA fees are payable to the

prevailing party, not his attorney. 130 S.Ct. at 2525. In so holding, the Court noted the

“practical reality that attorneys are the beneficiaries and, almost always, the ultimate

recipients of the fees that the statute awards to the ‘prevailing part[ies]’” because of

“nonstatutory (contractual and other assignment-based) rights that typically confer upon

the attorney the entitlement to payment of the fees award the statute confers on the

prevailing litigant.” Id. at 2529 (quoting Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 86 (1990)). 

The Court further noted that such “arrangements would be unnecessary if . . . statutory

fees language like that in . . . EAJA provide[d] attorneys with a statutory right to direct

payment of awards.” Id. Thus, although Ratliff clarifies that the EAJA awards attorney’s

fees directly to the prevailing party - in this case Plaintiff - it does not preclude the

contractual assignment of the fee award to Plaintiff’s counsel. However, “the private

contractual arrangement between [Plaintiff] and his counsel [is] a collateral matter that

the [Court] need not address when considering the EAJA fees motion.” Brown v. Astrue,

271 Fed.Appx. 741, 744 (10th Cir. 2008). 

Case 3:10-cv-08155-LOA Document 37 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 4
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 -

The Ninth Circuit has noted that “Ratliff counsels that in the absence of explicit

instructions from Congress awarding fees to the attorney, direct payment to the attorney

should not be presumed.” U.S. v. $186,416.00 in U.S. Currency, 642 F.3d 753 (9th Cir.

2011) (citing Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. at 2527). In view of Ratliff, the Court declines to order

direct payment to Plaintiff’s counsel. However, the Court will direct Defendant to mail

the check to the office of Plaintiff’s counsel.

In accordance with the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorney’s Fees Pursuant

to the Equal Access to Justice Act, doc. 30, is GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiff is

awarded $4,500.00 in attorney’s fees to be mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel, Jeremy Pekas,

1940 East Camelback Road, Suite 150, Phoenix, AZ 85016. 

 Dated this 7th day of March, 2012.

Case 3:10-cv-08155-LOA Document 37 Filed 03/07/12 Page 4 of 4