Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00470-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Carla Morgan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CARLA MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

Case No. 1: 12-cv-00470-LJO-SMS 

ORDER REQUESTING 

DOCUMENTATION SUBSTANTIATING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER THE 

EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 

On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Doc. 41-1. Therein, she seeks $13,625.90 in attorney’s 

fees for 72.50 hours expended on this case.1 In support of the motion are the following: (1) the 

declaration of attorney Jeffrey H. Baird, (2) the affidavit of Sengthiene Bosavanh, (3) the fee 

agreement between Plaintiff and the Law Offices of Jeffrey Milam, (4) the Court’s January 11, 

2016 order, (5) the Ninth Circuit’s November 10, 2015 memorandum, and (6) an itemized 

statement of the hours expended by Mr. Baird. Included in the itemized statement are hours 

attorney Baird claimed he spent from 2013 to 2015 preparing the appeal before the Ninth Circuit. 

 

1

Plaintiff’s brief states “$13,629.30,” however, a recalculation of the hours and rate set forth in the 

attached itemized statement reflects an incorrect computation. Doc. 41-7. The correct total amount 

is $13,625.90. 

Case 1:12-cv-00470-LJO-SMS Document 45 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 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

2

The Commissioner expressed opposition with the hours spent, given that the panel did not consider 

all of the claims raised. Doc. 43. 

To better assist the Court in determining the appropriate attorney’s fees, Plaintiff is 

requested to submit her appellate opening and reply briefs, neither of which she provided. It is 

Plaintiff’s burden, as the moving party here to prove the reasonableness of her request for EAJA 

fees. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984) (noting the burden lies with the applicant to 

demonstrate the reasonableness of his request). Accordingly, Plaintiff is directed to submit her 

Ninth Circuit opening brief and reply brief to the Court within seven (7) days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2016 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-00470-LJO-SMS Document 45 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 2