Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00123/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00123-0/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 (SSID)

---

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 

Robert L. Cerqua, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Carolyn W. Colvin, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00123-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Plaintiff has made an application to this Court for attorney’s fees under the Equal 

Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Doc. 22. The Commissioner does 

not oppose the motion. Doc. 23. 

 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 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). Courts routinely award attorney’s fees under this provision to 

claimants who successfully challenge the Social Security Administration’s denial of 

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. See, e.g., Tobeler v. 

Case 2:15-cv-00123-DGC Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

Colvin, 749 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2014). Where a successful claimant seeks attorney’s fees, 

“[i]t is the government’s burden to show that its position was substantially justified,” id.

at 832, or that special circumstances make an award unjust. 

 Plaintiff is a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the EAJA because the Court 

reversed the Commissioner’s decision and remanded for an award of benefits. Doc. 22. 

The Court concludes that the fees requested by Plaintiff are reasonable and consistent 

with rates awarded in comparable cases. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Doc. 22) is granted. 

Plaintiff is awarded $4,989.72 under the EAJA. 

 Dated this 13th day of January, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00123-DGC Document 24 Filed 01/13/16 Page 2 of 2